Critical Reasoning - GMAT Verbal
Card 0 of 456
Many of the yachts anchored in Miami boast a luxurious hot tub on the top deck. Almost 80% of the yachts that were sold in the past fifteen years in Miami are older models, and none of them had built-in hot tubs.
The information above most strongly supports which of the following?
Many of the yachts anchored in Miami boast a luxurious hot tub on the top deck. Almost 80% of the yachts that were sold in the past fifteen years in Miami are older models, and none of them had built-in hot tubs.
The information above most strongly supports which of the following?
The two pieces of evidence we are offered here do not allow us to make a strong enough conclusion to connect yachts to hot tubs. The first sentence tells us that an unspecified “many” of the yachts in Miami have a hot tub, but we do not know how many of these yachts are older models and how many are newer models. The second sentence tells us that 
sold were older models: that would imply that 
sold were newer models. Just because none of the older models that sold in the past fifteen years had built-in hot tubs does not necessarily mean people are avoiding buying older model yachts without hot tubs. There could be any number of explanations for this data. The only thing we can infer is that since only 
were older models, at least some newer models were sold.
The two pieces of evidence we are offered here do not allow us to make a strong enough conclusion to connect yachts to hot tubs. The first sentence tells us that an unspecified “many” of the yachts in Miami have a hot tub, but we do not know how many of these yachts are older models and how many are newer models. The second sentence tells us that
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Hiker: With the storm approaching quickly we need to make a decision on how to proceed. We can try to descend the mountain to seek shelter, but then we will undo our progress and lose our chance to reach the summit – and we may not make it all the way down, anyway. We can continue on our current course and hope that the storm misses us or passes quickly, but doing so risks a true disaster. So we should bivouac here, using the time before the storm to set up a safe, secure camp to weather the elements.
The hiker’s argument does which of the following?
Hiker: With the storm approaching quickly we need to make a decision on how to proceed. We can try to descend the mountain to seek shelter, but then we will undo our progress and lose our chance to reach the summit – and we may not make it all the way down, anyway. We can continue on our current course and hope that the storm misses us or passes quickly, but doing so risks a true disaster. So we should bivouac here, using the time before the storm to set up a safe, secure camp to weather the elements.
The hiker’s argument does which of the following?
In Method of Reasoning questions, the correct answer must be a completely-accurate description of the argument - your goal then should be to attack each answer choice to find a word or phrase that doesn't fit. Method of Reasoning makes for good process of elimination.
Choice "Claims that her decision is the only logical course of action." is incorrect in that the hiker does not single her decision out as the ONLY logical decision: she considers the merits of two other decisions and arrives at one she feels is best. Choice "Claims that her decision is the only logical course of action." is too strong.
Choice "Chooses a course of action based on experience in similar situations." is incorrect because the concept of experience never comes up in the argument. Similarly, choice "Makes a unilateral decision by dismissing the recommendations of others." mentions the recommendations of others but in the argument as given the only options discussed come straight from the hiker herself.
Choice "Recommends a choice based on the elimination of alternative options." is correct: she eliminates two options and arrives at the third, so it is true that she recommends a course of action based on the elimination of others.
And choice "Outlines the risks and benefits of all available courses of action." is incorrect in large part because of the word "all" - you do not know that the three options she discusses are the only available options, so "all" could include others. And she does not talk about the risks associated with the third plan, so she does not discuss the risks even of "all" plans that are included.
In Method of Reasoning questions, the correct answer must be a completely-accurate description of the argument - your goal then should be to attack each answer choice to find a word or phrase that doesn't fit. Method of Reasoning makes for good process of elimination.
Choice "Claims that her decision is the only logical course of action." is incorrect in that the hiker does not single her decision out as the ONLY logical decision: she considers the merits of two other decisions and arrives at one she feels is best. Choice "Claims that her decision is the only logical course of action." is too strong.
Choice "Chooses a course of action based on experience in similar situations." is incorrect because the concept of experience never comes up in the argument. Similarly, choice "Makes a unilateral decision by dismissing the recommendations of others." mentions the recommendations of others but in the argument as given the only options discussed come straight from the hiker herself.
Choice "Recommends a choice based on the elimination of alternative options." is correct: she eliminates two options and arrives at the third, so it is true that she recommends a course of action based on the elimination of others.
And choice "Outlines the risks and benefits of all available courses of action." is incorrect in large part because of the word "all" - you do not know that the three options she discusses are the only available options, so "all" could include others. And she does not talk about the risks associated with the third plan, so she does not discuss the risks even of "all" plans that are included.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Genetically-altered trees have been developed that can remove toxins from the air more quickly than naturally-occurring trees can. However, we will not know whether the modified trees adversely affect the environment without actually planting them and carefully monitoring the environment for at least several years. Since this might cause irrevocable harm to the surrounding area, we should resist the temptation to use these trees until long-term research in a closed environment has been completed.
Which of the following best describes the method of argument used in the argument above?
Genetically-altered trees have been developed that can remove toxins from the air more quickly than naturally-occurring trees can. However, we will not know whether the modified trees adversely affect the environment without actually planting them and carefully monitoring the environment for at least several years. Since this might cause irrevocable harm to the surrounding area, we should resist the temptation to use these trees until long-term research in a closed environment has been completed.
Which of the following best describes the method of argument used in the argument above?
The course of action that is advised against is planting genetically-altered trees to remove toxins. The similar, but limited, course of action is long-term research involving the planting of such trees in a closed environment. Positive results from the limited action – no serious damage to the environment – need to be seen; otherwise, we should “resist the temptation” to plant the trees in the open.
"After detailing concerns with two approaches to a problem, both are discarded in favor of an approach that does not raise the same concerns." This choice mentions two approaches, and then “another approach,” making for three approaches in total. However, only two approaches are ever mentioned: planting them in the general environment, or planting them in a closed environment.
"A possible future scenario is described as being unrealistic, while a different scenario is given more credence." No particular scenario is ever described as unrealistic.
"An experiment is recommended to determine the benefits of a new approach to a longstanding problem for which no other comparable solution is known." This choice starts out fine, but we cannot say that “no other comparable solution is known.” If anything, we are told that naturally occurring trees can be used to remove toxins, though slowly.
"The benefits and disadvantages of two remedial courses of action are weighed." It is not clear that the argument presents two distinct remedies. Even if we consider planting the trees in an open environment to be one remedy and planting the trees in a closed environment to be another remedy, no disadvantages to planting the trees in a closed environment are mentioned. If we consider planting naturally-occurring trees to be a second approach, then this answer choice does not even mention long-term research.
The correct answer is "A course of action is advised against unless a similar, but limited, course of action produces positive results."
The course of action that is advised against is planting genetically-altered trees to remove toxins. The similar, but limited, course of action is long-term research involving the planting of such trees in a closed environment. Positive results from the limited action – no serious damage to the environment – need to be seen; otherwise, we should “resist the temptation” to plant the trees in the open.
"After detailing concerns with two approaches to a problem, both are discarded in favor of an approach that does not raise the same concerns." This choice mentions two approaches, and then “another approach,” making for three approaches in total. However, only two approaches are ever mentioned: planting them in the general environment, or planting them in a closed environment.
"A possible future scenario is described as being unrealistic, while a different scenario is given more credence." No particular scenario is ever described as unrealistic.
"An experiment is recommended to determine the benefits of a new approach to a longstanding problem for which no other comparable solution is known." This choice starts out fine, but we cannot say that “no other comparable solution is known.” If anything, we are told that naturally occurring trees can be used to remove toxins, though slowly.
"The benefits and disadvantages of two remedial courses of action are weighed." It is not clear that the argument presents two distinct remedies. Even if we consider planting the trees in an open environment to be one remedy and planting the trees in a closed environment to be another remedy, no disadvantages to planting the trees in a closed environment are mentioned. If we consider planting naturally-occurring trees to be a second approach, then this answer choice does not even mention long-term research.
The correct answer is "A course of action is advised against unless a similar, but limited, course of action produces positive results."
Compare your answer with the correct one above
University X has announced that its library will not be open during the summer. Students attending classes during the summer have protested, saying that the library has research materials that cannot be borrowed from any public library in the area. The university administration has responded with an announcement that all university library materials will be accessible online through computers that are provided to all students for free by the university.
Which of the following best describes a method of argument used by the university administration?
University X has announced that its library will not be open during the summer. Students attending classes during the summer have protested, saying that the library has research materials that cannot be borrowed from any public library in the area. The university administration has responded with an announcement that all university library materials will be accessible online through computers that are provided to all students for free by the university.
Which of the following best describes a method of argument used by the university administration?
The students have specifically expressed their concern that they can't borrow the materials from a public library, which is why they want the library open. The university administration counters with an alternative solution to the problem -- access the materials online. Accordingly, choice "The administration counters a concern with an alternative." is the correct answer. Answer choice "The administration incorrectly makes an assumption about students' preferences." is incorrect because it is not clear that the administration is assuming anything about the students' preferences; nor is it certain that, even if the administration assumes that the students will prefer online materials to hard copies, that assumption will be incorrect. Answer choice "The administration provides an explanation that it assumes will clarify its decision." is also incorrect; the administration does not explain its decision to close the library, but rather offers an alterative solution. Answer choice "The administration defends its actions by criticizing the logic of its opponents." is incorrect, as the administration does not criticize the students at all, but rather addresses their concerns. Similarly, answer choice "The administration makes an unwarranted assumption about the motives of some of the students." is also incorrect, as the administration does not address the motives of the students at all.
The students have specifically expressed their concern that they can't borrow the materials from a public library, which is why they want the library open. The university administration counters with an alternative solution to the problem -- access the materials online. Accordingly, choice "The administration counters a concern with an alternative." is the correct answer. Answer choice "The administration incorrectly makes an assumption about students' preferences." is incorrect because it is not clear that the administration is assuming anything about the students' preferences; nor is it certain that, even if the administration assumes that the students will prefer online materials to hard copies, that assumption will be incorrect. Answer choice "The administration provides an explanation that it assumes will clarify its decision." is also incorrect; the administration does not explain its decision to close the library, but rather offers an alterative solution. Answer choice "The administration defends its actions by criticizing the logic of its opponents." is incorrect, as the administration does not criticize the students at all, but rather addresses their concerns. Similarly, answer choice "The administration makes an unwarranted assumption about the motives of some of the students." is also incorrect, as the administration does not address the motives of the students at all.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Incumbent candidate for governor: As the people of our great state know, my administration has created unprecedented economic prosperity and job growth. Just look at the unemployment rate, which has reached its lowest point in nearly twenty years!
Opposing candidate for governor: That’s preposterous. You overlook the fact that the unemployment rate is just as much a function of the number of people in the labor market as it is of the number of people employed. Your greatest contribution to the economy has been a series of retirement parties and moves to other states!
The opposing candidate’s reply to the incumbent proceeds by:
Incumbent candidate for governor: As the people of our great state know, my administration has created unprecedented economic prosperity and job growth. Just look at the unemployment rate, which has reached its lowest point in nearly twenty years!
Opposing candidate for governor: That’s preposterous. You overlook the fact that the unemployment rate is just as much a function of the number of people in the labor market as it is of the number of people employed. Your greatest contribution to the economy has been a series of retirement parties and moves to other states!
The opposing candidate’s reply to the incumbent proceeds by:
In this Method of Reasoning question, you're asked to describe the opposing candidate's reply, so pay particular attention to that. Note that the opponent does not supply any statistics, so choices "Supplying a statistic that undermines the incumbent’s conclusion.", "Suggesting that the incumbent’s statistic is factually inaccurate.", and "Offering a statistic that sheds additional light on the statistic supplied by the incumbent." are not accurate descriptions of the response. And he does not say that the statistic is irrelevant, just that there is more to the statistic than the incumbent had implied. The opponent points out that the unemployment rate may be more a function of the denominator (the number in the labor market) than the numerator (the number of those people without jobs), so he is saying that the statistic might not actually support the claim of the incumbent. Thus, choice "Pointing out that the incumbent cited a statistic that does not necessarily support his conclusion." is an apt description.
In this Method of Reasoning question, you're asked to describe the opposing candidate's reply, so pay particular attention to that. Note that the opponent does not supply any statistics, so choices "Supplying a statistic that undermines the incumbent’s conclusion.", "Suggesting that the incumbent’s statistic is factually inaccurate.", and "Offering a statistic that sheds additional light on the statistic supplied by the incumbent." are not accurate descriptions of the response. And he does not say that the statistic is irrelevant, just that there is more to the statistic than the incumbent had implied. The opponent points out that the unemployment rate may be more a function of the denominator (the number in the labor market) than the numerator (the number of those people without jobs), so he is saying that the statistic might not actually support the claim of the incumbent. Thus, choice "Pointing out that the incumbent cited a statistic that does not necessarily support his conclusion." is an apt description.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Diet Company Executive: Our “12-Weeks-to-Skinny” diet plan is the best in the country. Each year we send out a comprehensive survey to everyone who enrolled in this plan. The survey contains questions about everything from the quality of food in the program to the percentage of weight lost during the 12 weeks. Amazingly, last year over 80% of the survey respondents lost more than 10% of their body weight during the 12-week period, a figure unprecedented among diet companies.
The executive’s claim about the quality of the diet plan is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?
Diet Company Executive: Our “12-Weeks-to-Skinny” diet plan is the best in the country. Each year we send out a comprehensive survey to everyone who enrolled in this plan. The survey contains questions about everything from the quality of food in the program to the percentage of weight lost during the 12 weeks. Amazingly, last year over 80% of the survey respondents lost more than 10% of their body weight during the 12-week period, a figure unprecedented among diet companies.
The executive’s claim about the quality of the diet plan is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?
Fairly well hidden within the executive’s claim is a data flaw relating to the survey. What if the only people who responded to the survey were those people who had successfully lost weight. The executive says “last year, over 80% of the survey respondents lost more than 10%...” Remember: “Survey respondents” is not the same as “Those who enrolled in the plan”! There could have been 1 million people who enrolled in the plan but only 50,000 lost 10% of their weight or more. If most of those 50,000 responded to the survey, and few other people did, then it would seem that a high percentage of the survey participants lost weight, when it was really only 5% of the population. Answer choice "It does not consider whether dissatisfied customers are less likely to respond to the survey." exposes this flaw and is thus correct.
Fairly well hidden within the executive’s claim is a data flaw relating to the survey. What if the only people who responded to the survey were those people who had successfully lost weight. The executive says “last year, over 80% of the survey respondents lost more than 10%...” Remember: “Survey respondents” is not the same as “Those who enrolled in the plan”! There could have been 1 million people who enrolled in the plan but only 50,000 lost 10% of their weight or more. If most of those 50,000 responded to the survey, and few other people did, then it would seem that a high percentage of the survey participants lost weight, when it was really only 5% of the population. Answer choice "It does not consider whether dissatisfied customers are less likely to respond to the survey." exposes this flaw and is thus correct.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Town Representative: The new advertisements protesting plans by the town to build a new pier for large cruise ships have been appearing daily. The advertisements claim that the new pier will bring in more cruise ships and ruin the quaint charm of the town. However, these claims can be dismissed. Most of these advertisements were paid for by a major developer who currently profits greatly from allowing cruise ships to offload passengers at his property when they anchor in the nearby bay.
Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the town representative’s argument?
Town Representative: The new advertisements protesting plans by the town to build a new pier for large cruise ships have been appearing daily. The advertisements claim that the new pier will bring in more cruise ships and ruin the quaint charm of the town. However, these claims can be dismissed. Most of these advertisements were paid for by a major developer who currently profits greatly from allowing cruise ships to offload passengers at his property when they anchor in the nearby bay.
Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the town representative’s argument?
For this type of “describe the flaw” method of reasoning question, you should first attack the argument to find flaws on your own and then decide which answer choice properly describes one of them. In analyzing the Town Representatives argument, you should notice that he does not actually address the specific claims made in the advertisements. Rather he just questions the motivations behind the claims. What if indeed the new cruise ship pier WILL bring in more cruise ships and ruin the charm of the town, but the ads are being paid for by a developer with questionable motivations. Then can the claims really be dismissed? This flaw is described perfectly by answer choice "It rejects a claim by addressing the motivations for the people making it rather than by addressing its actual merits." as the representative only addresses the motivations but not the claims themselves. For "It focuses on the motivations for the people making a particular claim without considering the motivations of other people making the same claim.", the argument does focus on the motivations but the issue is NOT that it isn’t considering the motivations of other people – the issue is that it does not address the claims. For "It directly attacks the merits of the claims made in the advertisements but does not provide evidence to support the opposing view." the argument specifically does not attack the merits of the claim so this is clearly incorrect and for "It mischaracterizes the views put forth in the advertisements and then directly attacks these mischaracterized views." it is not mischaracterizing the views. For "It fails to consider the possibility that some of these advertisements were paid for by town advocates with legitimate concerns on the effects of cruise ships.", the argument does not fail to consider this possibility as it only says “most of advertisements” were paid for by a developer. The argument acknowledges there are other ads paid by different people but is just emphasizing that most come from this person. Correct answer is "It rejects a claim by addressing the motivations for the people making it rather than by addressing its actual merits."
For this type of “describe the flaw” method of reasoning question, you should first attack the argument to find flaws on your own and then decide which answer choice properly describes one of them. In analyzing the Town Representatives argument, you should notice that he does not actually address the specific claims made in the advertisements. Rather he just questions the motivations behind the claims. What if indeed the new cruise ship pier WILL bring in more cruise ships and ruin the charm of the town, but the ads are being paid for by a developer with questionable motivations. Then can the claims really be dismissed? This flaw is described perfectly by answer choice "It rejects a claim by addressing the motivations for the people making it rather than by addressing its actual merits." as the representative only addresses the motivations but not the claims themselves. For "It focuses on the motivations for the people making a particular claim without considering the motivations of other people making the same claim.", the argument does focus on the motivations but the issue is NOT that it isn’t considering the motivations of other people – the issue is that it does not address the claims. For "It directly attacks the merits of the claims made in the advertisements but does not provide evidence to support the opposing view." the argument specifically does not attack the merits of the claim so this is clearly incorrect and for "It mischaracterizes the views put forth in the advertisements and then directly attacks these mischaracterized views." it is not mischaracterizing the views. For "It fails to consider the possibility that some of these advertisements were paid for by town advocates with legitimate concerns on the effects of cruise ships.", the argument does not fail to consider this possibility as it only says “most of advertisements” were paid for by a developer. The argument acknowledges there are other ads paid by different people but is just emphasizing that most come from this person. Correct answer is "It rejects a claim by addressing the motivations for the people making it rather than by addressing its actual merits."
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Recent research shows that training programs that include emphases on flexibility, highlighting activities such as yoga and pilates, are significantly more effective at preventing injury in athletes than are training programs that solely focus on strength and speed. The Bournemouth Football Club suffered fewer injuries than the Haleford Football Club this past season, so it can be concluded that Bournemouth's training program featured more flexibility activities than did the program at Haleford.
The argument is most vulnerable to criticism because it:
Recent research shows that training programs that include emphases on flexibility, highlighting activities such as yoga and pilates, are significantly more effective at preventing injury in athletes than are training programs that solely focus on strength and speed. The Bournemouth Football Club suffered fewer injuries than the Haleford Football Club this past season, so it can be concluded that Bournemouth's training program featured more flexibility activities than did the program at Haleford.
The argument is most vulnerable to criticism because it:
When you look at how this argument is built, recognize a few major points:
-
The only comparison drawn between methods of injury prevention pits "flexibility training" against "strength and speed training." You don't at all know that flexibility training is the best of all possible injury prevention techniques (rest? nutrition? hydration?). What if Bournemouth just did a better job of prioritizing the other, unnamed injury prevention techniques, but didn't do as much flexibility training as Haleford?
-
The amount of flexibility training is not part of the comparison - the comparison just pits "programs that include flexibility training" (whether it's a small amount of flexibility training or a large amount) against "programs that solely focus on strength and speed." The given premise does not allow for a "more vs. less" flexibility training conclusion, as it is just "has" vs. "does not have" data.
-
You don't know whether Haleford has more players, or played more games - you don't know whether the real number data (more vs. fewer injuries) is balanced enough to draw a conclusoin.
As you go to the answer choices, you'll see that choice "assumes that the consequence of one set of circumstances would not be produced by another." summarizes the flaw outlined in 1) above - the conclusion doesn't allow for other factors to be the drivers behind the injury difference. And no choices summarize 2) or 3), so "assumes that the consequence of one set of circumstances would not be produced by another." must be correct. Among the incorrect choices:
"generalizes from too few data points." points out the wrong data flaw - there is a flaw in using real numbers of injuries without a per-capita or percentage direct comparison, but the problem isn't necessarily "too few data points."
"uses its own conclusion as one of its major premises." is not the case, as the conclusion is not one of the premises - it stands alone as its own new piece of information.
"fails to consult alternative research studies." is not necessarily a flaw, as there is no reason to suspect that the studies consulted are insufficient to establish the notion that flexibility can help prevent injuries.
And "does not distinguish between incidence of injury and degree of injury." is not a flaw here as the premises and conclusion are all consistent in using the number/incidence of injuries (did an injury occur). The argument as constructed has no need to focus on severity of injury.
When you look at how this argument is built, recognize a few major points:
-
The only comparison drawn between methods of injury prevention pits "flexibility training" against "strength and speed training." You don't at all know that flexibility training is the best of all possible injury prevention techniques (rest? nutrition? hydration?). What if Bournemouth just did a better job of prioritizing the other, unnamed injury prevention techniques, but didn't do as much flexibility training as Haleford?
-
The amount of flexibility training is not part of the comparison - the comparison just pits "programs that include flexibility training" (whether it's a small amount of flexibility training or a large amount) against "programs that solely focus on strength and speed." The given premise does not allow for a "more vs. less" flexibility training conclusion, as it is just "has" vs. "does not have" data.
-
You don't know whether Haleford has more players, or played more games - you don't know whether the real number data (more vs. fewer injuries) is balanced enough to draw a conclusoin.
As you go to the answer choices, you'll see that choice "assumes that the consequence of one set of circumstances would not be produced by another." summarizes the flaw outlined in 1) above - the conclusion doesn't allow for other factors to be the drivers behind the injury difference. And no choices summarize 2) or 3), so "assumes that the consequence of one set of circumstances would not be produced by another." must be correct. Among the incorrect choices:
"generalizes from too few data points." points out the wrong data flaw - there is a flaw in using real numbers of injuries without a per-capita or percentage direct comparison, but the problem isn't necessarily "too few data points."
"uses its own conclusion as one of its major premises." is not the case, as the conclusion is not one of the premises - it stands alone as its own new piece of information.
"fails to consult alternative research studies." is not necessarily a flaw, as there is no reason to suspect that the studies consulted are insufficient to establish the notion that flexibility can help prevent injuries.
And "does not distinguish between incidence of injury and degree of injury." is not a flaw here as the premises and conclusion are all consistent in using the number/incidence of injuries (did an injury occur). The argument as constructed has no need to focus on severity of injury.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
A television news network has recently been criticized for failing to give as much time to individuals who do not believe climate change is occurring as they do to scientists who believe climate change is occurring, even though the network does give equal time to all sides of the debates over immigration, tax reform, and gun policy. The network claims that they only give equal time to both sides of a debate when one side cannot be definitively proven by existing scientific research.
Which of the following can be correctly inferred from the information given above?
A television news network has recently been criticized for failing to give as much time to individuals who do not believe climate change is occurring as they do to scientists who believe climate change is occurring, even though the network does give equal time to all sides of the debates over immigration, tax reform, and gun policy. The network claims that they only give equal time to both sides of a debate when one side cannot be definitively proven by existing scientific research.
Which of the following can be correctly inferred from the information given above?
Whenever you are asked to make an inference from an argument presented on the GMAT, remember that inferences don't need to be interesting or surprising - they only need to be guaranteed.
The argument here states that a television network has been criticized for not giving as much time to climate change deniers as it does to those who believe in climate change even though they do give equal time to all sides of the debates surrounding other issues like tax reform and immigration. The network claims that this is because they only give equal time if one side of the debate cannot be definitively proven by science.
Since the network does not give equal time to both sides of the climate change debate, that means that people at the network believe that it fits the exception given and that one side (the side that believes in climate change) has been definitively proven by science, which matches answer choice "The television news network believes that the existence of climate change has been definitely proven by existing scientific research.".
Among the other answers, "The television news network believes that it is important to avoid debate on scientific discoveries." can be discarded because while the network does not give equal time for all sides of the debate in some cases, it does not provide a blanket dismissal of debating all scientific discovery. Choice "There are no effective counter arguments against climate change that might sway viewers to believe that climate change is not occurring." can be eliminated since while the network believes the science has been settled, this is not the same thing as claiming that no one will be swayed by the arguments against climate change. Choice "No individuals who spoke on the network and who did not believe climate change was occurring were scientists." is a bit harder to eliminate since the stimulus tells you that the people who believe that climate change is occurring are scientists, but it doesn't specifically say that the individuals who don't believe in climate change aren't scientists, so "No individuals who spoke on the network and who did not believe climate change was occurring were scientists." can be eliminated. Choice "If the news network gave the same time it gave to scientists to individuals who don’t believe in climate change, it would increase its ratings." can also be eliminated since even though some people criticize the network for its current policy, it is unknown how a change in policy would affect overall criticism of the network (and in turn how that would effect ratings).
Whenever you are asked to make an inference from an argument presented on the GMAT, remember that inferences don't need to be interesting or surprising - they only need to be guaranteed.
The argument here states that a television network has been criticized for not giving as much time to climate change deniers as it does to those who believe in climate change even though they do give equal time to all sides of the debates surrounding other issues like tax reform and immigration. The network claims that this is because they only give equal time if one side of the debate cannot be definitively proven by science.
Since the network does not give equal time to both sides of the climate change debate, that means that people at the network believe that it fits the exception given and that one side (the side that believes in climate change) has been definitively proven by science, which matches answer choice "The television news network believes that the existence of climate change has been definitely proven by existing scientific research.".
Among the other answers, "The television news network believes that it is important to avoid debate on scientific discoveries." can be discarded because while the network does not give equal time for all sides of the debate in some cases, it does not provide a blanket dismissal of debating all scientific discovery. Choice "There are no effective counter arguments against climate change that might sway viewers to believe that climate change is not occurring." can be eliminated since while the network believes the science has been settled, this is not the same thing as claiming that no one will be swayed by the arguments against climate change. Choice "No individuals who spoke on the network and who did not believe climate change was occurring were scientists." is a bit harder to eliminate since the stimulus tells you that the people who believe that climate change is occurring are scientists, but it doesn't specifically say that the individuals who don't believe in climate change aren't scientists, so "No individuals who spoke on the network and who did not believe climate change was occurring were scientists." can be eliminated. Choice "If the news network gave the same time it gave to scientists to individuals who don’t believe in climate change, it would increase its ratings." can also be eliminated since even though some people criticize the network for its current policy, it is unknown how a change in policy would affect overall criticism of the network (and in turn how that would effect ratings).
Compare your answer with the correct one above
A computer equipped with fingerprint recognition software, which denies access to a computer to anyone whose fingerprint is not on file, identifies a person's fingerprint by analyzing not only the detailed structure of the fingerprint, but also such characteristics as the level of pressure upon which the finger is placed on the scanner and the finger's skin tone. Even the most adept computer hackers cannot duplicate all the characteristics the software analyzes.
Which of the following can be logically concluded from the passage above?
A computer equipped with fingerprint recognition software, which denies access to a computer to anyone whose fingerprint is not on file, identifies a person's fingerprint by analyzing not only the detailed structure of the fingerprint, but also such characteristics as the level of pressure upon which the finger is placed on the scanner and the finger's skin tone. Even the most adept computer hackers cannot duplicate all the characteristics the software analyzes.
Which of the following can be logically concluded from the passage above?
The correct answer to this question is "It is not possible for any top computer hacker to gain access to a computer equipped with the recognition software solely by virtue of skill in replicating the structure of fingerprints.". This is an INFERENCE question, requiring the test taker to choose the correct answer that must be true based on the information provided in the stimulus. "Use of the recognition software is largely impractical due to the time it takes to record and analyze a fingerprint." is incorrect as the passage provides no information with regard to the speed of recording and analyzing the fingerprint; as such, no related conclusion can be drawn. "Computers equipped with the recognition software will soon be installed in most financial firms that deal with sensitive electronic information." is incorrect as the passage provides no information with regard to the installation of computers that possess the software in specific locations; as such, no related conclusion can be drawn. "It is not possible for any top computer hacker to gain access to a computer equipped with the recognition software solely by virtue of skill in replicating the structure of fingerprints." This is the correct answer. The passage states that the software detects more characteristics than those that the most successful hackers are able to duplicate; as such, we can conclude it would be impossible for any top hacker to gain access to a protected computer solely by replicating one of multiple characteristics analyzed by the software. "Fingerprint recognition software has taken many years and tremendous investment to develop and perfect." is incorrect as the passage provides no information with regard to the time and investment costs associated with the development of the software; as such, no related conclusion can be drawn. "The fingerprint recognition software is so sensitive that many authorized users are often denied legitimate access." is incorrect as the passage provides no information with regard to errors produced by the software; as such, no related conclusion can be drawn.
The correct answer to this question is "It is not possible for any top computer hacker to gain access to a computer equipped with the recognition software solely by virtue of skill in replicating the structure of fingerprints.". This is an INFERENCE question, requiring the test taker to choose the correct answer that must be true based on the information provided in the stimulus. "Use of the recognition software is largely impractical due to the time it takes to record and analyze a fingerprint." is incorrect as the passage provides no information with regard to the speed of recording and analyzing the fingerprint; as such, no related conclusion can be drawn. "Computers equipped with the recognition software will soon be installed in most financial firms that deal with sensitive electronic information." is incorrect as the passage provides no information with regard to the installation of computers that possess the software in specific locations; as such, no related conclusion can be drawn. "It is not possible for any top computer hacker to gain access to a computer equipped with the recognition software solely by virtue of skill in replicating the structure of fingerprints." This is the correct answer. The passage states that the software detects more characteristics than those that the most successful hackers are able to duplicate; as such, we can conclude it would be impossible for any top hacker to gain access to a protected computer solely by replicating one of multiple characteristics analyzed by the software. "Fingerprint recognition software has taken many years and tremendous investment to develop and perfect." is incorrect as the passage provides no information with regard to the time and investment costs associated with the development of the software; as such, no related conclusion can be drawn. "The fingerprint recognition software is so sensitive that many authorized users are often denied legitimate access." is incorrect as the passage provides no information with regard to errors produced by the software; as such, no related conclusion can be drawn.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
If the minimum wage increases again, MacDowell’s will have to increase the prices it charges for its products. And if that happens, MacDowell’s has a choice: it can spend more on advertising to attract more customers, or its sales and profitability will decrease. But since the extra advertising costs will simply raise total expenses, increasing those costs will still result in an overall decrease in profitability.
Which one of the following conclusions can be logically drawn from the statements above?
If the minimum wage increases again, MacDowell’s will have to increase the prices it charges for its products. And if that happens, MacDowell’s has a choice: it can spend more on advertising to attract more customers, or its sales and profitability will decrease. But since the extra advertising costs will simply raise total expenses, increasing those costs will still result in an overall decrease in profitability.
Which one of the following conclusions can be logically drawn from the statements above?
Because this is an Inference question, the degree of proof for the correct answer is that the correct answer MUST BE TRUE. Because of that:
Choice "Unless the minimum wage increases, MacDowell’s will continue to remain profitable." is incorrect because you're not told what happens if the minimum wage does not increase. This prediction is hard to make, then: suppose the minimum wage stayed flat but a disease was traced to MacDowell's ingredients or a fire burned down its top-grossing store. There are plenty of ways for profitability to be cut even if the minimum wage stays flat.
Choice "If the minimum wage increases, MacDowell’s will no longer be able to remain profitable." is incorrect because it goes too far. You know that profitability will decrease, but not that it will go away entirely.
Choice "MacDowell’s will see its profitability increase if the minimum wage does not increase." is incorrect for similar reasons to choice "Unless the minimum wage increases, MacDowell’s will continue to remain profitable.". There are plenty of factors aside from the minimum wage that could decrease profitability, so choice "MacDowell’s will see its profitability increase if the minimum wage does not increase." is not necessarily true.
Choice "MacDowell’s will be unable to maintain its current profitability if the minimum wage increases." is correct. Because you're told in the argument that, of the two options that would face MacDowell's in the event of a minimum wage increase, both will decrease profitability, you know it to be true that a wage increase will cut profitability.
Choice "If MacDowell’s sees a reduction in its profitability, that means that the minimum wage has increased." is incorrect for similar reasons to "Unless the minimum wage increases, MacDowell’s will continue to remain profitable." and "MacDowell’s will see its profitability increase if the minimum wage does not increase.". Plenty of other factors can lead to a decrease in profitability, so that decrease on its own does not allow you to infer that it was specific to a minimum wage hike.
Because this is an Inference question, the degree of proof for the correct answer is that the correct answer MUST BE TRUE. Because of that:
Choice "Unless the minimum wage increases, MacDowell’s will continue to remain profitable." is incorrect because you're not told what happens if the minimum wage does not increase. This prediction is hard to make, then: suppose the minimum wage stayed flat but a disease was traced to MacDowell's ingredients or a fire burned down its top-grossing store. There are plenty of ways for profitability to be cut even if the minimum wage stays flat.
Choice "If the minimum wage increases, MacDowell’s will no longer be able to remain profitable." is incorrect because it goes too far. You know that profitability will decrease, but not that it will go away entirely.
Choice "MacDowell’s will see its profitability increase if the minimum wage does not increase." is incorrect for similar reasons to choice "Unless the minimum wage increases, MacDowell’s will continue to remain profitable.". There are plenty of factors aside from the minimum wage that could decrease profitability, so choice "MacDowell’s will see its profitability increase if the minimum wage does not increase." is not necessarily true.
Choice "MacDowell’s will be unable to maintain its current profitability if the minimum wage increases." is correct. Because you're told in the argument that, of the two options that would face MacDowell's in the event of a minimum wage increase, both will decrease profitability, you know it to be true that a wage increase will cut profitability.
Choice "If MacDowell’s sees a reduction in its profitability, that means that the minimum wage has increased." is incorrect for similar reasons to "Unless the minimum wage increases, MacDowell’s will continue to remain profitable." and "MacDowell’s will see its profitability increase if the minimum wage does not increase.". Plenty of other factors can lead to a decrease in profitability, so that decrease on its own does not allow you to infer that it was specific to a minimum wage hike.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Most pain relievers come with warnings against continuous use longer than 7 consecutive days. While some people might be able to safely use a particular pain reliever for a longer period of time, many people will begin to experience side effects if the warnings are ignored.
The information above most strongly supports which of the following?
Most pain relievers come with warnings against continuous use longer than 7 consecutive days. While some people might be able to safely use a particular pain reliever for a longer period of time, many people will begin to experience side effects if the warnings are ignored.
The information above most strongly supports which of the following?
This is an Inference question. In isolation, the phrase in the question stem, “most strongly supports”, could hint at either a Strengthen question or an Inference question. However, when we take the stem in its entirety, the structure of the problem begins to unfold. Remember: premises always support conclusions. Thus, if the information in the answer choices supports the argument above, the answer choices must be premises and the conclusion is found in the argument (leading us to believe the problem is a Strengthen question.) On the other hand, if the information in the body of the question supports the answer choices below, the argument’s conclusion must be found in the answer choices (leading us to believe the problem is an Inference question.) Since the question stem indicates that the information “above” is supporting answer choices below, the answer choices must be potential conclusions. This must be an Inference question.
Two primary insights can be gleaned reading the body of the question. First, since we are looking at an Inference question, our first line of defense is the “no new information” filter. Remember that valid conclusions must always (not just sometimes) be true, and therefore must be based entirely on the information found in the premises. Conclusions containing new information not found anywhere in the argument may or may not be true. The second insight is closely linked to the first. Throughout the entire body of the question, a lot of fuzzy, non-specific words are used: “most pain relievers”, “some people”, and “many people.” They describe subgroups of the total, and are very nebulous, especially when you contrast such phrases with “all pain relievers” or “all people.” Therefore, valid conclusions that go beyond these vague categorizations may or may not be true. Believing you can conclude something about “all people” when you only know about “some people” is a logical error known as overgeneralization. Once we recognize this trick of the Testmaker, it becomes relatively easy to spot many of the wrong answer choices.
Answer choice “A physician should not advise any patient to take any pain reliever for a period of longer than 7 consecutive days.” is a classic example of overgeneralization. Notice how this conclusion focuses on “any patient” taking “any pain reliever.” The body of the question only tells us about “most people” and “most pain relievers”. This conclusion goes beyond what we know, and therefore is not necessarily true.
Answer choice “People who are sensitive to one type of pain reliever should not attempt to use a different pain reliever.” includes new information not contained in the body of the question. The evidence in the top part of the question contains nothing about people being “sensitive” to one type of pain reliever. Therefore, we cannot make a conclusion about something we don’t have information on. Answer choice “People who are sensitive to one type of pain reliever should not attempt to use a different pain reliever.” is not necessarily true.
Answer choice “At least some people who take pain relievers for longer than 7 days will experience side effects. contains no new information, and remains within the fuzzy scope of the original statements. The body of the question tells us that “many people” who take painkillers for longer than 7 days experience side effects. The conclusion that “at least some people” will experience side effects is well within the information given. “At least some people who take pain relievers for longer than 7 days will experience side effects.” is basically a restate of information already given, so we can clearly conclude it must be true. “At least some people who take pain relievers for longer than 7 days will experience side effects.” is the right answer.
The conclusion in answer choice “Any side effects experienced by a patient who has taken a pain reliever for fewer than 7 consecutive days cannot be the result of the pain reliever.” also uses extreme scope limiters not justified by the original evidence. It refers to “any side effects” that “cannot” be the result of pain relievers. This goes well beyond the scope. The problem only tells us about side effects caused by a subset of pain relievers. It makes no mention of side effects not caused by pain relievers. Answer choice “Any side effects experienced by a patient who has taken a pain reliever for fewer than 7 consecutive days cannot be the result of the pain reliever.” fails the “no new information” filter. We cannot make a conclusion about something we don’t have information on. Answer choice “Any side effects experienced by a patient who has taken a pain reliever for fewer than 7 consecutive days cannot be the result of the pain reliever.” is not necessarily true.
Answer choice “Anyone who wants to maximize their natural health and well-being should avoid pain relievers entirely.” contains all sorts of new information not contained in the original evidence. The body of the question makes no mention on how to “maximize your natural health and well-being”, nor does it give us any criteria for when we should avoid pain relievers. (For example, could it be possible that the advantages of taking pain relievers could outweigh the side effects, even if we had to deal with these negative consequences?) “Anyone who wants to maximize their natural health and well-being should avoid pain relievers entirely.” cannot be a valid conclusion.
This is an Inference question. In isolation, the phrase in the question stem, “most strongly supports”, could hint at either a Strengthen question or an Inference question. However, when we take the stem in its entirety, the structure of the problem begins to unfold. Remember: premises always support conclusions. Thus, if the information in the answer choices supports the argument above, the answer choices must be premises and the conclusion is found in the argument (leading us to believe the problem is a Strengthen question.) On the other hand, if the information in the body of the question supports the answer choices below, the argument’s conclusion must be found in the answer choices (leading us to believe the problem is an Inference question.) Since the question stem indicates that the information “above” is supporting answer choices below, the answer choices must be potential conclusions. This must be an Inference question.
Two primary insights can be gleaned reading the body of the question. First, since we are looking at an Inference question, our first line of defense is the “no new information” filter. Remember that valid conclusions must always (not just sometimes) be true, and therefore must be based entirely on the information found in the premises. Conclusions containing new information not found anywhere in the argument may or may not be true. The second insight is closely linked to the first. Throughout the entire body of the question, a lot of fuzzy, non-specific words are used: “most pain relievers”, “some people”, and “many people.” They describe subgroups of the total, and are very nebulous, especially when you contrast such phrases with “all pain relievers” or “all people.” Therefore, valid conclusions that go beyond these vague categorizations may or may not be true. Believing you can conclude something about “all people” when you only know about “some people” is a logical error known as overgeneralization. Once we recognize this trick of the Testmaker, it becomes relatively easy to spot many of the wrong answer choices.
Answer choice “A physician should not advise any patient to take any pain reliever for a period of longer than 7 consecutive days.” is a classic example of overgeneralization. Notice how this conclusion focuses on “any patient” taking “any pain reliever.” The body of the question only tells us about “most people” and “most pain relievers”. This conclusion goes beyond what we know, and therefore is not necessarily true.
Answer choice “People who are sensitive to one type of pain reliever should not attempt to use a different pain reliever.” includes new information not contained in the body of the question. The evidence in the top part of the question contains nothing about people being “sensitive” to one type of pain reliever. Therefore, we cannot make a conclusion about something we don’t have information on. Answer choice “People who are sensitive to one type of pain reliever should not attempt to use a different pain reliever.” is not necessarily true.
Answer choice “At least some people who take pain relievers for longer than 7 days will experience side effects. contains no new information, and remains within the fuzzy scope of the original statements. The body of the question tells us that “many people” who take painkillers for longer than 7 days experience side effects. The conclusion that “at least some people” will experience side effects is well within the information given. “At least some people who take pain relievers for longer than 7 days will experience side effects.” is basically a restate of information already given, so we can clearly conclude it must be true. “At least some people who take pain relievers for longer than 7 days will experience side effects.” is the right answer.
The conclusion in answer choice “Any side effects experienced by a patient who has taken a pain reliever for fewer than 7 consecutive days cannot be the result of the pain reliever.” also uses extreme scope limiters not justified by the original evidence. It refers to “any side effects” that “cannot” be the result of pain relievers. This goes well beyond the scope. The problem only tells us about side effects caused by a subset of pain relievers. It makes no mention of side effects not caused by pain relievers. Answer choice “Any side effects experienced by a patient who has taken a pain reliever for fewer than 7 consecutive days cannot be the result of the pain reliever.” fails the “no new information” filter. We cannot make a conclusion about something we don’t have information on. Answer choice “Any side effects experienced by a patient who has taken a pain reliever for fewer than 7 consecutive days cannot be the result of the pain reliever.” is not necessarily true.
Answer choice “Anyone who wants to maximize their natural health and well-being should avoid pain relievers entirely.” contains all sorts of new information not contained in the original evidence. The body of the question makes no mention on how to “maximize your natural health and well-being”, nor does it give us any criteria for when we should avoid pain relievers. (For example, could it be possible that the advantages of taking pain relievers could outweigh the side effects, even if we had to deal with these negative consequences?) “Anyone who wants to maximize their natural health and well-being should avoid pain relievers entirely.” cannot be a valid conclusion.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
The price of health insurance as a percentage of an individual’s overall monthly income does not necessarily indicate quality of care. If it did, individuals who spent a greater percentage of their income on health insurance would receive better quality of care, or vice versa.
If the statements above are all true, which of the following can be properly inferred on the basis of them?
The price of health insurance as a percentage of an individual’s overall monthly income does not necessarily indicate quality of care. If it did, individuals who spent a greater percentage of their income on health insurance would receive better quality of care, or vice versa.
If the statements above are all true, which of the following can be properly inferred on the basis of them?
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.
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.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
When the defendant in a trial chooses not testify, the jury is not supposed to view this as evidence of the defendant’s guilt or innocence. Rather, the jury should base its decision on the evidence that is presented throughout the trial. Nevertheless, jurors will often take the failure of a defendant to testify as evidence of that defendant’s guilt.
Which of the following conclusions can most properly be drawn from the information above?
When the defendant in a trial chooses not testify, the jury is not supposed to view this as evidence of the defendant’s guilt or innocence. Rather, the jury should base its decision on the evidence that is presented throughout the trial. Nevertheless, jurors will often take the failure of a defendant to testify as evidence of that defendant’s guilt.
Which of the following conclusions can most properly be drawn from the information above?
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 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.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
About one-quarter of 'Top 50' business schools in the United States have acceptance rates of over 30 percent. Because of the higher acceptance rate, students admitted to these programs tend to have GMAT scores under 650, undergraduate grade point averages below 3.4, and work experience of less than four years.
Which of the following can be inferred from the passage above?
About one-quarter of 'Top 50' business schools in the United States have acceptance rates of over 30 percent. Because of the higher acceptance rate, students admitted to these programs tend to have GMAT scores under 650, undergraduate grade point averages below 3.4, and work experience of less than four years.
Which of the following can be inferred from the passage above?
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.
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.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
The continual use of chemical sprays in an effort to rid a house of insects has two unintended results that are particularly dangerous. First, chemical sprays often kill spiders, which are natural predators of most other insects found in the house. Second, chemical sprays often give rise to insects that are largely resistant to the sprays, since those insects that survive a particular spray will be the ones that are most resistant to the spray and will most prolifically breed spray-resistant offspring.
From the passage above, it can be inferred that the usefulness of chemical sprays can be improved by doing which of the following, assuming each is realistically possible?
The continual use of chemical sprays in an effort to rid a house of insects has two unintended results that are particularly dangerous. First, chemical sprays often kill spiders, which are natural predators of most other insects found in the house. Second, chemical sprays often give rise to insects that are largely resistant to the sprays, since those insects that survive a particular spray will be the ones that are most resistant to the spray and will most prolifically breed spray-resistant offspring.
From the passage above, it can be inferred that the usefulness of chemical sprays can be improved by doing which of the following, assuming each is realistically possible?
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.
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.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Fretter Appliances sold more refrigerators in 2015 than in any previous year, and most of the refrigerators it sold that year were purchased by residents of Oakland County. However, most refrigerators purchased by residents of Oakland County in 2015 were not purchased from Fretter Appliances.
Which of the following conclusions can be logically drawn from the statements above?
Fretter Appliances sold more refrigerators in 2015 than in any previous year, and most of the refrigerators it sold that year were purchased by residents of Oakland County. However, most refrigerators purchased by residents of Oakland County in 2015 were not purchased from Fretter Appliances.
Which of the following conclusions can be logically drawn from the statements above?
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 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.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommends a specific daily intake for vitamin C, as greatly exceeding that amount is dangerous. Many vitamin-fortified foods contain 100% of this recommended daily intake for vitamin C in one serving, an amount defined on the package by the manufacturer. However, most consumers overestimate the amount of one serving for these foods, ingesting two to four times what is considered one serving by the manufacturer.
Which of the following is most supported by the information above?
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommends a specific daily intake for vitamin C, as greatly exceeding that amount is dangerous. Many vitamin-fortified foods contain 100% of this recommended daily intake for vitamin C in one serving, an amount defined on the package by the manufacturer. However, most consumers overestimate the amount of one serving for these foods, ingesting two to four times what is considered one serving by the manufacturer.
Which of the following is most supported by the information above?
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 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.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Some analysts predict that next year will see total worldwide sea shipping tonnage increase by 2% over the current year. However, captains of freight ships generally expect that worldwide shipping tonnage will decrease next year. At issue is the amount of freight that will be shifted from sea ships to freight airplanes as compared to growth in the overall demand for freight transport. The analysts believe growth in demand will outstrip the shift to freight airplanes; the ship captains believe the opposite.
The two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
Some analysts predict that next year will see total worldwide sea shipping tonnage increase by 2% over the current year. However, captains of freight ships generally expect that worldwide shipping tonnage will decrease next year. At issue is the amount of freight that will be shifted from sea ships to freight airplanes as compared to growth in the overall demand for freight transport. The analysts believe growth in demand will outstrip the shift to freight airplanes; the ship captains believe the opposite.
The two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
The question stem, “The two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?”, clearly indicates this is a “Roles in Boldface” question, a subtype of the Method category. In order to successfully answer this question, we must analyze the “big picture” of the argument, focusing on structure, not topic. The correct answer will describe the function of the two bolded statements within the argument. Stepping back to look at the entire argument independent of its contextual context provides an insight into what role each piece plays. In essence, the argument states: “Some people believe X. Other people believe Y. The reason they disagree is Z. Some people believe X; the other people believe Y.” Because “Roles in Boldface” questions often contain overlapping answers, these questions are susceptible to process-of-elimination techniques. By correctly categorizing one of the two bolded statements, we can often eliminate more than one answer choice. The second bolded statement (“The reason they disagree is Z”) is likely the easier one to evaluate because it is distinctly different from the rest.
Looking down at the answer choices, “The first portion is evidence that supports a position; the second portion is a position that is not necessarily true based on the evidence.” and “The first portion represents one of two opposed positions; the second portion represents the opposing position.” both call the second bolded statement “a position” of one of the two groups. “The first portion represents one of two opposed positions; the second portion is evidence in support of that position.” and “The first portion is evidence that supports a position; the second portion is evidence that supports an opposed position.” call it “evidence in support” of a position. Only “The first portion represents one of two opposed positions; the second portion describes the underlying reason for the difference in position.” correctly identifies the second portion as the underlying reason for why the two groups disagree. We can actually eliminate four of the five answers without needing to evaluate the first bolded statement. The answer must be “The first portion represents one of two opposed positions; the second portion describes the underlying reason for the difference in position.”.
Just to check ourselves, we can evaluate the first statement to see if it fits (“Some people believe X.”) The first statement is clearly a statement of one of two positions, so it matches perfectly with “The first portion represents one of two opposed positions; the second portion describes the underlying reason for the difference in position.”.
The question stem, “The two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?”, clearly indicates this is a “Roles in Boldface” question, a subtype of the Method category. In order to successfully answer this question, we must analyze the “big picture” of the argument, focusing on structure, not topic. The correct answer will describe the function of the two bolded statements within the argument. Stepping back to look at the entire argument independent of its contextual context provides an insight into what role each piece plays. In essence, the argument states: “Some people believe X. Other people believe Y. The reason they disagree is Z. Some people believe X; the other people believe Y.” Because “Roles in Boldface” questions often contain overlapping answers, these questions are susceptible to process-of-elimination techniques. By correctly categorizing one of the two bolded statements, we can often eliminate more than one answer choice. The second bolded statement (“The reason they disagree is Z”) is likely the easier one to evaluate because it is distinctly different from the rest.
Looking down at the answer choices, “The first portion is evidence that supports a position; the second portion is a position that is not necessarily true based on the evidence.” and “The first portion represents one of two opposed positions; the second portion represents the opposing position.” both call the second bolded statement “a position” of one of the two groups. “The first portion represents one of two opposed positions; the second portion is evidence in support of that position.” and “The first portion is evidence that supports a position; the second portion is evidence that supports an opposed position.” call it “evidence in support” of a position. Only “The first portion represents one of two opposed positions; the second portion describes the underlying reason for the difference in position.” correctly identifies the second portion as the underlying reason for why the two groups disagree. We can actually eliminate four of the five answers without needing to evaluate the first bolded statement. The answer must be “The first portion represents one of two opposed positions; the second portion describes the underlying reason for the difference in position.”.
Just to check ourselves, we can evaluate the first statement to see if it fits (“Some people believe X.”) The first statement is clearly a statement of one of two positions, so it matches perfectly with “The first portion represents one of two opposed positions; the second portion describes the underlying reason for the difference in position.”.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Luddite: Though everyone today is wild about their knickknacks and gadgets, the underlying worthlessness of modern technology is demonstrated easily enough. While timeless staples of world commerce like coffee, wheat, and chocolate continue to rise in price, computers, digital cameras, televisions, and the like cost less every year, despite their frequent improvements.
Which of the following best describes the roles played in the argument above by the two statements in boldface?
Luddite: Though everyone today is wild about their knickknacks and gadgets, the underlying worthlessness of modern technology is demonstrated easily enough. While timeless staples of world commerce like coffee, wheat, and chocolate continue to rise in price, computers, digital cameras, televisions, and the like cost less every year, despite their frequent improvements.
Which of the following best describes the roles played in the argument above by the two statements in boldface?
Roles questions often feature answer choices that diverge into two clearly defined groups, and this question is no exception. Begin by determining the nature of the first statement, which nicely passes the "Why Test" for conclusions. Why is the worthlessness of technology demonstrated easily enough? Because of the statistic that comes next (prices for "old world" goods are rising, while prices for high tech items are falling).
Because this portion is a conclusion, you can eliminate answers "The first is a premise supporting a later contention; the second is also a premise supporting that same contention." and "The first is a premise that is not necessarily true; the second is an admission of a potential flaw in the earlier premise." immediately without even considering the second half of each answer choice.
Then assess the role of the second bolded portion. Note that it modifies the main clause of the final sentence, which could stand alone without the modifier. By saying "despite their frequent improvements" the modifier bolsters that provided information, suggesting that one would think that prices for technological items would rise, and yet they have fallen. So the second portion exists to strengthen the main premise of the argument. Choice "The first is a conclusion that does not necessarily follow from a given premise; the second is a consideration meant to strengthen a premise given in support of that conclusion." provides exactly this description, so choice "The first is a conclusion that does not necessarily follow from a given premise; the second is a consideration meant to strengthen a premise given in support of that conclusion." is correct.
Roles questions often feature answer choices that diverge into two clearly defined groups, and this question is no exception. Begin by determining the nature of the first statement, which nicely passes the "Why Test" for conclusions. Why is the worthlessness of technology demonstrated easily enough? Because of the statistic that comes next (prices for "old world" goods are rising, while prices for high tech items are falling).
Because this portion is a conclusion, you can eliminate answers "The first is a premise supporting a later contention; the second is also a premise supporting that same contention." and "The first is a premise that is not necessarily true; the second is an admission of a potential flaw in the earlier premise." immediately without even considering the second half of each answer choice.
Then assess the role of the second bolded portion. Note that it modifies the main clause of the final sentence, which could stand alone without the modifier. By saying "despite their frequent improvements" the modifier bolsters that provided information, suggesting that one would think that prices for technological items would rise, and yet they have fallen. So the second portion exists to strengthen the main premise of the argument. Choice "The first is a conclusion that does not necessarily follow from a given premise; the second is a consideration meant to strengthen a premise given in support of that conclusion." provides exactly this description, so choice "The first is a conclusion that does not necessarily follow from a given premise; the second is a consideration meant to strengthen a premise given in support of that conclusion." is correct.
Compare your answer with the correct one above