This is a Weaken question, due to the phrase, “which of the following…indicates the plan…is ill-suited.” However, unlike other Weaken questions that focus on arguments containing premises and conclusions, this problem focuses on the steps and goals of a particular plan. Thus, instead of zeroing in on a conclusion (as we normally would if attempting to weaken a traditional argument), we pay special attention to the goal of the plan. The correct answer will show that the proposed solution would not meet the predefined goals. The primary goal of the environmental groups is found in the very first sentence of the question: they want to “protect the environment”. To reach this goal, their plan is to keep a decommissioned oil platform from sinking. Naturally, any answer choice that shows the plan does not “protect the environment” could potentially weaken the efficacy of the solution.

Answer choice “The National Environmental Research Council approved the sinking of the oil platform, calling it the “best practicable environmental option.”” uses a fairly common trick of the Testmaker: luring test takers into accepting an “expert opinion” when the evaluatory criteria used by the expert are not explicitly stated. While the expert (in this case, the National Environmental Research Council) may give an official statement, this does not mean that the expert has the same goals or motives as the environmental groups have. “The best practicable environmental option” may or may not protect the environment. Answer choice “The National Environmental Research Council approved the sinking of the oil platform, calling it the “best practicable environmental option.”” does not necessarily weaken the plan.

Answer choice “Dismantling the oil platform on land would cost over 70 million dollars, compared to the $7.5 million needed to secure and sink it in a deep ocean location.” is a misdirection answer. Here the Testmaker introduces different criteria than those used by the environmental groups (in this case, the cost of different options.) As compelling as saving millions of dollars may be, the goal of the environmental groups is to “protect the environment” not “save money”. Our goal is to undermine the efficacy of the proposed plan in meeting the proposed goal; whether the plan saves money is irrelevant.

Answer choice “The release of 53 tons of toxic material into the ocean is very little compared to the volume of very highly toxic materials released by deep sea volcanoes.” is also a misdirection answer. It tries to get novice test takers to focus on other sources of toxic materials irrelevant to the goals of the proposed plan: environmentalists could still protect the environment from the toxic materials released by sinking the oil platform, regardless of the amount of chemicals released by natural phenomena.

(Now, if they could somehow plug an undersea volcano by sinking the oil platform, that would be another story entirely; however, such a possibility is not mentioned here!)

Answer choice “Towing the oil platform into shallow waters poses a massive risk that it may break up on its way to land, releasing the contained pollutants into fragile coastal waters.” shows us how the potential effects of the environmentalists’ plan could actually pose a greater risk to the environment, thus undermining the environmentalists’ goal of “protecting the environment”. Answer choice “Towing the oil platform into shallow waters poses a massive risk that it may break up on its way to land, releasing the contained pollutants into fragile coastal waters.” weakens the plan.

Answer choice “The sinking of the platform is fully in line with internationally approved guidelines for the disposal of off shore installations at sea.” is another variation on the “expert opinion” trap used by the Testmaker. Even if the disposal process were “internationally approved” (implying the “okay” of some governing body), this could still come in conflict with the environmentalists’ goals.

This is a Weaken question, as evidenced by the phrase, “which of the following…argues most strongly against.” This particular problem highlights one of the sub-types of Weaken questions: notice that we are not necessarily looking at a logical argument, but instead at a proposed solution or plan. Whenever we encounter these kinds of Weaken questions, we need to mind the gap between the proposed goal of the plan and the methods used to obtain that goal. The disconnect often lies between those two components. In the case of this particular problem, the staff at a local daycare believes that parents would be incentivized to pick up their children if late fines were assessed. The question naturally arises: would late fines actually change the behavior of the perpetually late parents? Any answer choice that undermines this would weaken the plan.

Answer choice “By replacing social norms with market norms, fines might induce parents to weigh the “costs” of picking their children up late and, as a result, to frequently choose to be late.” does exactly that. This suggests that fines might actually exacerbate the behavior of parents to pick up their children late. This runs completely counter to the goals of the daycare staff, who hoped fines would reduce the propensity for parental lateness. “By replacing social norms with market norms, fines might induce parents to weigh the “costs” of picking their children up late and, as a result, to frequently choose to be late.” weakens the plan, and, therefore, is the correct answer.

Answer choice “There might be irreconcilable disagreements among the daycare staff about whether the late fines should be imposed.” is a distraction from the real issue. The entire question centers on the effectiveness of the plan to reduce parental lateness. Disagreements about whether the plan should be enacted are independent of any questions of effectiveness. The Testmaker is hoping that novice test takers “read between the lines” on this answer, imagining that such disagreements would lead to resistance and ineffectiveness.

This is a dangerous trap. No such connection is explicitly made here. Reading between the lines generally gets the novice test taker into trouble.

Answer choice “Late fines might cause some parents to enroll their children in other daycares.” is another distraction designed by the Testmaker to introduce additional (and irrelevant) criteria. The question stem asks us to consider situations that would reduce the “effectiveness” of the plan of using fines to incentivize parents to pick their children up on time. Answer choice “Late fines might cause some parents to enroll their children in other daycares.” gives us other side-effects (loss of enrollment), but this is outside the scope of the question.

Answer choice “Removing the late fine policy might actually increase the number of tardy pick-ups.” is completely irrelevant and is outside the scope of the problem. Since the question asks us to evaluate situations that would reduce the “effectiveness” of the current plan of using fines to incentivize parents to pick their children up on time, any suggestion that focuses on what happens after the plan is no longer in effect is irrelevant. We are only asked to evaluate what happens when the plan is in effect.

The Testmaker included answer choice “Some parents might pick up their children late no matter what level of fine is imposed against them.” as an alternative answer to confuse novice test takers. “Some parents might pick up their children late no matter what level of fine is imposed against them.” does tell us that some parents would still pick up their children late, regardless of the fines. This does weaken the argument by showing that the fine policy would not effective across the board. However, notice the distinction between answer choice “Some parents might pick up their children late no matter what level of fine is imposed against them.” and answer choice “By replacing social norms with market norms, fines might induce parents to weigh the “costs” of picking their children up late and, as a result, to frequently choose to be late.”. Answer choice “Some parents might pick up their children late no matter what level of fine is imposed against them.” is very limited, using phrases such as “some parents might.” On the other hand, answer choice “By replacing social norms with market norms, fines might induce parents to weigh the “costs” of picking their children up late and, as a result, to frequently choose to be late.” is much more broad-ranging, making an overarching statement about parents in general who might “frequently” choose to be late. “By replacing social norms with market norms, fines might induce parents to weigh the “costs” of picking their children up late and, as a result, to frequently choose to be late.” tells us that the policy could actually increase tardiness. Answer choice “Some parents might pick up their children late no matter what level of fine is imposed against them.” implies that the policy simply has no effect on a subgroup of people. Because answer choice “Some parents might pick up their children late no matter what level of fine is imposed against them.” is much softer than answer choice “By replacing social norms with market norms, fines might induce parents to weigh the “costs” of picking their children up late and, as a result, to frequently choose to be late.”, we would eliminate “Some parents might pick up their children late no matter what level of fine is imposed against them.” when comparing the two answers.

The strategy outlined in this Weaken problem makes a classic error of correlation vs. causation, assuming that "bringing lunch to work" is a cause of "takes fewer sick days." In actuality, it could be that bringing lunch is an effect of a totally different cause, as choice "Employees who bring their lunch from home tend to lead generally healthier lifestyles than do employees who purchase lunch." correctly points out. With choice "Employees who bring their lunch from home tend to lead generally healthier lifestyles than do employees who purchase lunch.", the cause of both "brings lunch to work" and "takes fewer sick days" is that generally-healthier people do both - they bring their lunch to work and they take fewer sick days. Forcing someone else - someone less healthy - to bring his or her lunch wouldn't change the other unhealthy habits that lead to extra sick days, so the plan would not work.

While choice "Boltech's cafeteria is known for serving a diverse array of healthy lunch options." seems like it should weaken the plan (taking away the healthy options at the cafeteria), keep in mind that we already have the evidence that those who bring their lunch take fewer sick days than those who eat at the cafeteria, so those healthy cafeteria options have already been called into question as a driver of fewer sick days.

Choice "Because of Boltech's location, employees who choose to visit a nearby restaurant for lunch will seldom be able to return within an hour." could very well be correct if the goal were to minimize "time away from one's desk" or something similar, but the goal is specifically called out as "fewer sick days." Being away for a longer period for lunch may well be a problem worth considering, but in the context of this particular goal it is irrelevant.

Choice "Employees have expressed concern about the cost of dining at nearby restaurants compared with the affordability of the Boltech cafeteria." is similar: it shows a reason why the plan might not be a great plan overall (it could hurt employee morale) but the goal is specifically drawn at "fewer sick days" so that morale is irrelevant to the specific aims in the problem. For similar reasons, choice "Many Boltech employees chose to work for the company in large part because of its generous benefits, such as an on-site cafeteria and fitness center." is also incorrect - while morale may be hurt and people might feel misled (or future recruitment efforts may fall short), the only objective specifically addressed in the problem is "reduce the number of sick days" so choice "Many Boltech employees chose to work for the company in large part because of its generous benefits, such as an on-site cafeteria and fitness center." is not relevant.

In this question, your goal is to assess the quality of the argument supporting the increase in the average workweek as an important cause for the increase in BMI over a period of 20 years. What is the evidence given for this conclusion? That the increased time at work does not allow people as much time to exercise and engage in healthy activities that help reduce weight. As in any useful to evaluate question, you should attack this line of reasoning and consider what assumptions or flaws are inherent in the argument. At its heart, this argument makes an important assumption: that 20 years ago people used the additional time when they were not at work to exercise and engage in healthy activities. Imagine that 20 years ago almost no one used that additional 11 hours to exercise – they used it to go out to dinner, watch TV, sleep, etc. Then this argument falls apart as the additional time spent at work does not change the time available for exercise and healthy activities compared to 20 years ago. Any question that relates to this assumption will be the correct answer. For "Do more employers offer healthy eating options in their onsite cafeterias today compared to twenty years ago?" and "Do more employers subsidize gym and health club memberships for their employees today compared to twenty years ago?" these questions are unimportant as they do not relate to the issue of having more time. "What percentage of employees use their free time to exercise and engage in healthy activities today compared to twenty years ago?" is quite tricky and might seem important at first glance but the percentage is not important. Imagine that a higher percentage of people today are engaging in exercise and healthy activities but they only have a very small amount of time to do it or vice versa. The issue is whether they now lack the time to exercise and engage in healthy activities and this question does not address this fact. "Did employees exercise and engage in healthy activities with the additional time when they were not at work twenty years ago?" hits exactly the assumption discussed earlier and is thus the correct answer. For "What factors other than exercise and engaging in healthy activities are important for weight loss?", this argument is only about whether a lack of time to exercise and engage in healthy activities resulting from more work is the cause of an increase in average body mass index – other factors are not important. Correct answer is "Did employees exercise and engage in healthy activities with the additional time when they were not at work twenty years ago?".

In any useful to evaluate question, you should attack the argument and consider what flaws or assumptions exist. Here the primary assumption is that 35% of restaurants going out of business is a higher than normal figure. What if it is generally true that about a third of restaurants go out of business in a three-year period? Then this argument would be quite weak. The argument suggests that a high dining tax has caused a higher than average closing rate in other cities, but no evidence is given that 35% is actually a high figure. Given that, answer choice "What percentage of restaurants typically go out of business over a three-year period in cities without a similarly high dining tax?" indicates the question you would want to know the answer to in order to better evaluate the quality of the argument.

For "How would San Francisco’s new dining tax compare to other cities across the country?", this comparison is unimportant as you are already given the necessary comparison in the stimulus – you know that other cities have a similarly high tax rate and the issue is only whether 35% is really significant. For "Is price the most important factor for potential customers in determining where they will choose to dine?", price does not need to be the MOST important factor within this argument. The argument suggests that higher prices caused by a higher tax would cause restaurants to go out of business, but this does not require that price be the most important factor for customers. For "How many restaurants are in San Francisco compared to other cities across the country?", with percentage data used in the stimulus, the number of restaurants in other cities compared to San Francisco is irrelevant. For "Does the new city tax apply to restaurants that have been in business for more than 25 years?", whether there may or may not be certain restaurants that are exempt from the tax has no meaningful impact on the quality of the argument. The correct answer is "What percentage of restaurants typically go out of business over a three-year period in cities without a similarly high dining tax?".

In this argument, the conclusion states that people will be able to get downtown in less time by bus than by driving. What is the reason given for this conclusion? That new bus lanes have been made which allow buses to move unimpeded through congested areas. As in any useful to evaluate question, you should attack this line of reasoning and consider what assumptions or flaws are inherent in the argument. At its heart, this argument assumes that because buses can move unimpeded in the new lanes, they will travel the distance faster than cars that do not have special lanes. But what if the buses are incredibly slow for other reasons? What if they have to stop every quarter mile for time consuming drop-offs and pick-ups? In analyzing the answer choices, you are looking for some piece of information relating to this assumption. For "Whether a large percentage of commuters drive to the downtown area at times other than rush hour.", what percentage of commuters drive outside of rush hour is unimportant as this argument is only concerned with the time it takes at rush hour. Similarly for "Whether a large percentage of commuters use means other than driving to commute to the downtown area during rush hour.", the argument only makes a comparison between buses and driving so other means of travel are not important. "Whether the buses have frequent departure times during rush hour." is tricky as it seems like it might matter but this argument is only concerned with the time it takes to get from point A to point B at rush hour. Whether the bus leaves every 5 minutes or every 30 minutes has no impact on the conclusion as it does not change how long it would take. "Whether the buses make frequent stops when traveling between the suburbs and the downtown area during rush hour." addresses exactly the assumption discussed earlier and is thus correct. If the bus makes frequent stops then it might actually take longer than driving a car, greatly weakening the conclusion. For "Whether the buses used in the new separate lanes are similar to other buses used." the similarity of the buses does nothing to address the issue of time compared to driving so is not relevant. Correct answer is "Whether the buses make frequent stops when traveling between the suburbs and the downtown area during rush hour.".

This argument assumes that many people are actually using the carriage roads from March 15th to May 1st. What if virtually no one visited the park that time of year? Then this plan would do very little to prevent damage from overuse. Therefore the answer is "Whether a considerable percentage of carriage road usage occurs from March 15th to May 1st." – if a large percentage of use occurs during this time period then it’s a good plan, and if a small percentage of use occurs during this time period then it’s a bad plan. The relative damage caused by bikes and horses versus runners and runners and walkers is not important (both are being limited and you don’t know the real difference in the limitation). Whether snowmobiles are allowed in winter does not relate to the efficacy of this specific plan – maybe only a few snowmobiles use the roads. "Whether some sections of the carriage roads are more susceptible to damage from overuse than others." is pretty much given already in the stimulus and "Whether a substantial percentage of visitors to the park ride their bikes on the carriage roads during their visit." is also not relevant as you don’t need to know how popular biking is in relation to the total population. Answer is "Whether a considerable percentage of carriage road usage occurs from March 15th to May 1st.".

Given that the argument seems almost self-evidently true (62.5% is much more than 16.7%), the real question in this "useful to evaluate" problem is: "How could the conclusion about fans having unmet expectations possibly be false?"

There's a very subtle disconnect in the statistics given by this question; the numbers don't actually offer the right sort of information. Specifically, there's a different between discussing the number or percentage of teams that will win, on the one hand, and discussing the number or percentage of fans whose teams will win, on the other hand. If, for instance, nearly all fans share the same favorite baseball team, then it would be quite possible for nearly all of the fans to root for a winner even as only one of 30 teams actually wins.

A simple example with numbers: Imagine 8 fans, of whom five root for the Yankees, one roots for the Dodgers, one roots for the Braves, and one roots for the Tigers. The other 26 teams have no fans. If the Yankees win the World Series, only 1/30, or about 3%, of the baseball teams in the league won the championship. But fully 5/8, or 62.5%, of the fans got to see their favorite team win and their championship expectations met.

In the face of this disconnect, we need to know whether such an uneven distribution of fandom actually exists. If it does, then the fans' expectations could be met. If, instead, the distribution of fandom is relatively even, then indeed the argument's conclusion will hold as most of the fans will see their expectations go unmet. Thus "Whether each team has roughly the same number of fans." is correct.

"Whether baseball will drastically change the number of teams that qualify for the playoffs during the next five years." is not relevant, since regardless of now many teams may qualify for the playoffs we are told that only one team can win the championship each year.

"How many teams are good enough to be considered championship contenders in an average year." sounds nice, but the conclusion is about "championship[s]," and being a contender just isn't good enough.

"Whether a single team is likely win the World Series multiple times during the next five years." doubles down on the numerical flaw. If a single team wins multiple championships, then the number of distinct championship teams over the five year span would actually comprise less than 16.7% of all of the teams, potentially leaving even more fan expectations unmet.

"How many current fans will continue to follow their teams if their championship expectations are not met." simply does not address the conclusion. At no point do we care how fans might react to having their expectations frustrated.

When you are asked to determine which experiment would yield useful results for analyzing a particular problem, recognize that this means that you are dealing with a (slightly less obvious) Useful to Evaluate problem. With any Useful to Evaluate problem, remember that you first want to look at the stimulus itself to figure out what the scientists or analysts are trying to determine. Then look for the gap - what piece of information is missing that could potentially either prove their hypothesis or disprove it?

The stimulus states that mice treated with statins experienced drug-induced muscular degeneration and that the scientists think this might have been cause by the statins over-activating something called creatine kinase (which is known to cause muscular degeneration). Notice that the hypothesis has to do with cause and effect: statins cause an over-activation of creatine kinase, which causes muscular degeneration. But what if the statins directly caused the degeneration instead of causing that intermediate step? Choice "Injecting mice with a creatine kinase inhibitor before administering the statins and then monitoring muscle tissue response." is the only option that accounts for this possibility. By first administering a creatine kinase blocker, scientists can ensure that the effect is caused because the statins activate the creatine kinase rather than because the statins directly damage muscles. Choice "Injecting mice with a creatine kinase inhibitor before administering the statins and then monitoring muscle tissue response." is therefore correct.

Among the other answers, choices "Administering statins to mice with increased creatine kinase activity and observing creatine kinase activity." and "Injecting mice with muscle repair medication and then monitoring levels of muscular response." can be eliminated because they don't mention creatine kinase at all. Choice "Injecting mice with creatine kinase inhibitors and then monitoring muscle tissue response." can be eliminated because it doesn't mention the administering the statin. Since you're looking for the mechanism by which the statin causes muscular degeneration. Choice "Measuring mice’s level of muscular myopathy, administering a creatine kinase inhibitor, and then measuring myopathy once more." can be eliminated because it's already known that creatine kinase can cause muscular myopathy - you don't need to establish that again, so "Measuring mice’s level of muscular myopathy, administering a creatine kinase inhibitor, and then measuring myopathy once more." can be eliminated.

For any Useful to Evaluate question, you should look for the piece of information that, depending on the answer to the additional information, would exploit a gap between the premise and the suggested course of action. To do that, you first need to understand the stimulus itself.

The stimulus states that bacterial infection is a dangerous problem for manufacturers. Chemical sterilizers are also very expensive, so analysts have suggested using UV lamps to do the same job since a single UV lamp costs the same as a month's worth of chemical sterilizers that could be used to sterilize the same number of vats. You are then asked what would be useful in figuring out whether the suggestion would help determine whether the change would decrease the cost of food sterilization. (The key here is that it saves money - not that it's safer or more effective.)

The only place that the stimulus discusses cost is where it states that a lamp costs the same as a month of chemical sterilizers in order to sterilize the same number of vats. If the lamps last longer than a month, then they will fulfill the requirement since the lamps will therefore be cheaper than chemical sterilizers. However, if the lamps only last a month (or less) then the lamps will be either the same cost or more expensive than the chemical sterilizers. Therefore the correct answer must be "Whether the UV lamps tend to be effective for longer than a single month.".

Among the other answers, you can eliminate "Whether food distributors should also sterilize their trucks in order to keep food safe." and "Whether appropriate cooking practices can effectively destroy bacteria once food has been shipped to consumers." since food safety and other points on the production chain aren't under discussion. Similarly, "Whether UV radiation is harmful to workers who come in contact with it." can be eliminated because worker safety is not a consideration within the argument - only cost is considered. Choice "Whether stainless steel containers are more prone to contamination than are other types of containers." can also be eliminated since the analyst is considering replacing the chemical sterilizers and does not discuss the possibility of using a different type of container.