Card 0 of 20
A large company has recently increased its dividend payments to shareholders. Shareholders had previously been worried about the company's stock price, but are now relieved since increasing dividends generally boosts a company's stock price. However, the shareholders' optimism may be ill-founded since spending money on the payment of dividends often indicates that the company has exhausted more lucrative investments for its cash reserves and that the stock price will likely fall in the longer run.
In the argument above, the two bold-faced portions play which of the following roles?
This Boldface problem rewards those who can adeptly deconstruct arguments and find conclusions. Here the main conclusion of the argument is "the shareholders' optimism may be ill-founded" - you know that this is a conclusion because it is adjacent to the word "since" (which gives a reason for the conclusion - remember, conclusions must pass the "why test" in which some other portion of the argument tries to explain why it is true). And you know that it's the main conclusion because it follows "however," a signal that the author has introduced an idea and then transitioned to her main point.
With this knowledge you're ready to attack the answer choices and pick apart the subtle difference between popular choices. The first bolded portion is evidence that is used to support a conclusion (just not the main conclusion) - it's a reason that some shareholders believe that they do not have be be worried about the company's stock price.
The second bolded portion is evidence for the main conclusion - it's the reason that the shareholders' optimism may be unfounded.When you attack the answer choices, note that "The first is evidence that supports a conclusion; the second is that conclusion." and "The first is a premise that is accepted as true; the second is a conclusion that is contrary to the premise." each clearly mischaracterize the second bolded portion as a conclusion when in fact it is a premise.
Among the other choices, recognize that the goal of the argument - as evidenced by the conclusion - is to show that the shareholders' optimism is misplaced, NOT to clarify the initial fact. Again, this goes back to isolating and fixating on the conclusion. This is why choice "The first describes evidence that supports a conclusion; the second gives a reason for questioning that support." is correct: it properly notes the role of the second bolded portion, to support the conclusion that the optimism is unfounded (which, conceptually, is the same thing as questioning the shareholders' logic). Choices "The first describes the circumstance that the argument seeks to explain; the second provides evidence in support of the explanation that the argument seeks to establish." and "The first is a premise that is accepted as true; the second seeks to clarify the original premise." are each tempting, but each suggests that the purpose of the argument is to clarify the fact in the first sentence, when in fact the conclusion is clear in its intention to question the logic of the shareholders.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Recently, some economists have concluded that the major impediment to job growth in the U.S. is the enormous national debt. While many politicians would like to stimulate job growth by increasing government spending, these economists believe it will have the opposite effect and thus want to cut spending immediately. Historically, when total debt levels exceed 90% of domestic GDP, economic growth falls significantly causing job losses and overall economic malaise. The current U.S. debt is over 96% of GDP, so it is hard to argue the importance of decreasing this percentage and the economists are correct on this point. However, what these economists fail to understand is that cutting spending at this critical juncture would put too much pressure on a fragile economy. In the short term, spending should be left at current levels and revenue should be increased by increasing taxes on wealthy individuals and some corporations. As the economy strengthens, then spending can be decreased with the goal of reducing the debt percentage of GDP to a figure below 90%.
The portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
For any boldfaced question, it is essential that you first understand the complete argument. In this stimulus, it is stated that some economists believe that the enormous debt is the major impediment to job growth. As a result, these economists believe that spending should be cut immediately to reduce the debt. The evidence they give for their argument is that current debt levels are 96% of GDP and when total debt levels exceed 90% of domestic GDP, economic growth falls significantly causing job losses and overall economic malaise. The author of this argument agrees that reducing debt is essential but believes that an immediate reduction of spending would be problematic because the economy is too fragile. His recommendation and conclusion is that spending levels should be left constant in the short term and revenues increased with more taxes. Then, after the economy has recovered, spending should indeed be reduced. In summary, the author agrees with the economists that the major impediment to job growth is the high debt level but disagrees with their short term plan because the economists have not considered the fragile state of the economy. With that understanding of the argument, you must then attack each answer choice to see how the boldfaced sections are described:
"The first boldfaced portion is an opinion that the author of this argument believes is incorrect; the second boldfaced portion is support for that opinion." The author does not believe that first boldfaced portion is incorrect but rather believes it is correct. He disagrees with their assertion that “spending should be cut immediately” but agrees with this boldfaced portion. While the second boldface portion is described correctly, "The first boldfaced portion is an opinion that the author of this argument believes is incorrect; the second boldfaced portion is support for that opinion." is incorrect because of the description of the first boldfaced portion.
"The first boldfaced portion is an opinion that the author of this argument believes is incorrect; the second boldfaced portion is support for the author’s conclusion." This answer choice also incorrectly describes the first boldfaced portion. While the second does support the author’s conclusion, "The first boldfaced portion is an opinion that the author of this argument believes is incorrect; the second boldfaced portion is support for the author’s conclusion." contains the same error as "The first boldfaced portion is an opinion that the author of this argument believes is incorrect; the second boldfaced portion is support for that opinion." with the first boldfaced portion.
"The first boldfaced portion is an opinion that the author believes is correct; the second boldfaced portion is support for that opinion." The first boldfaced portion is an opinion that the author indeed believes is correct. The second boldfaced portion is the essential premise for that opinion so "The first boldfaced portion is an opinion that the author believes is correct; the second boldfaced portion is support for that opinion." is correct.
"The first boldfaced portion is an opinion upon which the author’s conclusion is based; the second boldfaced portion is evidence that contradicts that conclusion." In this choice, it is correct to say for the first boldfaced portion that the author’s conclusion is based on the opinion that the major impediment to job growth in the U.S. is the enormous national debt. However, the second boldfaced portion does not contradict the author’s conclusion but rather supports it so "The first boldfaced portion is an opinion upon which the author’s conclusion is based; the second boldfaced portion is evidence that contradicts that conclusion." is incorrect
"The first boldfaced portion is the author’s conclusion; the second boldfaced portion is support for that conclusion." The first boldfaced portion is not the author’s conclusion but rather the opinion of several other economists. The author’s conclusion is given in the last two sentences that are not boldfaced.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Recently, motorists have begun purchasing more and more fuel-efficient economy and hybrid cars that consume fewer gallons of gasoline per mile traveled. With that trend, there has been debate as to whether we can conclude that these purchases will actually lead to an overall reduction in the total consumption of gasoline across all motorists. The answer is no, since motorists with more fuel-efficient vehicles are likely to drive more total miles than they did before switching to a more fuel-efficient car, negating the gains from higher fuel-efficiency.
Which of the following best describes the roles of the portions in bold?
As you deconstruct the argument in this Boldface question, recognize first that the first bolded sentence is a premise, stated as a fact. Further, the beginning of the next sentence states "with that trend...," establishing that the argument will build from that fact. From here you can eliminate choices "The first states a position taken by the argument; the second introduces a conclusion that is refuted by additional evidence." and "The first is a conclusion that is later shown to be false; the second is the evidence by which that conclusion is proven false." (each of which says that the first portion is a conclusion). You can also be very skeptical of choice "The first is a premise that is later shown to be false; the second is a conclusion that is later shown to be false.": even though it correctly says that the first portion is a premise, note that it goes on to say that the argument proves that premise false. As you will see from the rest of the paragraph, the argument is concerned with attacking a conclusion drawn from that premise, but never tries to disprove the fact itself. For this reason, "The first is a premise that is later shown to be false; the second is a conclusion that is later shown to be false." is also incorrect.
As you look at the second bolded portion, note that the phrase "there has been debate as to whether we can conclude" is also direct cause for eliminating "The first is a premise that is later shown to be false; the second is a conclusion that is later shown to be false.": the second bolded portion is not the conclusion itself, but rather the introduction of the conclusion. You should see that this language matches choice "The first describes a premise that is accepted as true; the second introduces a conclusion that is opposed by the argument as a whole." perfectly, so choice "The first describes a premise that is accepted as true; the second introduces a conclusion that is opposed by the argument as a whole." is correct.
Similarly "The first is evidence that has been used to support a position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second provides information to undermine the force of that evidence." is incorrect, as the second bolded portion introduces a conclusion that could be drawn based on the first premise: it does not, as "The first is evidence that has been used to support a position that the argument as a whole opposes; the second provides information to undermine the force of that evidence." says "undermine that evidence." To the contrary, it builds upon it.
Note that the conclusion of this argument is the phrase "the answer is no," which comes right next to the explanation for that conclusion, "since motorists with more fuel-efficient vehicles..." This allows you to eliminate choice "The first is a conclusion that is later shown to be false; the second is the evidence by which that conclusion is proven false.", as the evidence for the argument's conclusion is everything beginning with "since," not the second bolded portion. Choice "The first describes a premise that is accepted as true; the second introduces a conclusion that is opposed by the argument as a whole." is correct.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Business School Dean: We are all in agreement that we must cut unnecessary costs in order to afford our popular international study programs, a hallmark of our unique offering that prospective students know us for. But cutting the marketing budget would be a terrible idea; after all, our unique international programs cannot attract prospective students if we do not properly market them.
The portions highlighted in boldface play which of the following roles?
As you assess the argument and scan the answer choices, it should become clear that you will need to determine the dean's conclusion. A few things are important in finding that: 1) note the word "but" to begin the second sentence. Transition language like that often signifies that the author is transitioning between contextual information and her main point, so you should pay even closer attention past "but" to find the conclusion there. 2) Remember the "why test" - in order to be a conclusion, a statement must be backed up with a reason "why" it's true somewhere else in the argument.
Note that the non-bolded initial clause of that sentence "cutting the marketing budget would be a terrible idea" does have a reason why: because if you did that, students wouldn't know about these great programs. The bolded portion does not have a reason why: "our unique programs cannot attract students if we do not properly market them" is given as a fact without the rest of the argument explaining why.
From that, you should see that the second bolded portion exists to support the author's conclusion. This will narrow you down to choices "The first is a consideration that the dean agrees with; the second is support for the dean’s conclusion." and "The first is a conclusion that the dean supports; the second is evidence for that conclusion.".
From there, play the answers against each other. "The first is a consideration that the dean agrees with; the second is support for the dean’s conclusion." says that the second portion is used to support the dean's conclusion, while "The first is a conclusion that the dean supports; the second is evidence for that conclusion." says that it's evidence for "that conclusion," meaning the first bolded portion. "our unique programs cannot attract students if we do not properly market them" does support the conclusion that cutting marketing would be a bad idea (choice "The first is a consideration that the dean agrees with; the second is support for the dean’s conclusion.") but it doesn't support the idea that "we should cut unnecessary costs" (choice "The first is a conclusion that the dean supports; the second is evidence for that conclusion."). So the correct answer is "The first is a consideration that the dean agrees with; the second is support for the dean’s conclusion.".
Compare your answer with the correct one above
In countries where healthcare is universal and provided free of charge by the government, visits per capita to the doctor are twice as frequent as they are in countries where healthcare is paid at least partly out-of-pocket by the consumer. Presently, governments do not have a reliable way of determining whether the symptoms for which these patients were treated for would have otherwise subsided without medical attention. However, this information does not warrant the conclusion by some universal healthcare critics that in the countries with a higher frequency of doctor visits, about half of them are unnecessary. Alternatively, in those countries where healthcare is not free, consumers often forego visits to the doctor except in cases of severe symptoms.
In the argument above, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
Remember that for all Method of Reasoning questions you must first deconstruct the argument before you go through process of elimination to find which answer choice best describes it. The first bolded information gives that the frequency of visits to the doctor is twice as high in those countries with free healthcare as it is in those without free healthcare. This piece of information is presented without an explanation as to why and is therefore a premise that describes the frequency of visits to the doctors between countries that do and do not have universal healthcare.
After the first bolded portion, the next portion gives a second premise, that there is no way of determining the severity of the patients’ symptoms and no way of determining whether these trips to the doctor were unnecessary. The second sentence of not-bolded information continues this by stating that the conclusion that half of the visits in countries with universal health care are unnecessary is not necessarily valid.
The second set of bolded text then gives an alternative explanation: that consumers in countries without universal health care instead avoid going to the doctor when they need to. Notice that this isn’t a conclusion, but is instead an argument against a certain conclusion.
With the argument deconstructed, you can then take a look at the answer choices. Be wary of wordplay and be very picky!
Choice "The first is a premise that the argument disputes; the second is a conclusion that has been based on that premise." may seem close to your initial analysis of the bolded portions. The first bolded portion is a premise, but it is not the premise that the argument disputes, but the conclusions that can be drawn from that premise. Additionally, the second portion is reasoning that the conclusion in the previous sentence isn’t justified rather than a conclusion in and of itself. Choice "The first is a premise that the argument disputes; the second is a conclusion that has been based on that premise." can therefore be eliminated.
Choice "The first is a premise, of which the implications are in dispute in the argument; the second is a claim presented in order to argue against deriving certain implications from that premise." matches the deconstruction of the argument. The first bolded portion is a premise whose implications (whether or not the extra doctor’s visits are warranted) are indeed under attack. The second bolded portion is a claim, arguing against the conclusion in the previous sentence. Choice "The first is a premise, of which the implications are in dispute in the argument; the second is a claim presented in order to argue against deriving certain implications from that premise." is correct.
Choice "The first is a finding, the accuracy of which is evaluated in the argument; the second is evidence presented to establish the accuracy of the finding." can be eliminated since the first bolded portion is not a finding, but a premise. Its accuracy is also not in question, so you can confidently eliminate choice "The first is a finding, the accuracy of which is evaluated in the argument; the second is evidence presented to establish the accuracy of the finding.".
Choice "The first is a premise that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is that conclusion." is correct in that the first portion is a premise. However, the first conclusion reached is not accepted by the argument – it is disputed. Choice "The first is a premise that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is that conclusion." can be eliminated.
Choice "The first is a conclusion that rests upon further evidence within the argument; the second supports that conclusion." can be eliminated since the first bolded portion is a premise, not a conclusion, since it does not pass the “why” test.
The correct answer is "The first is a premise, of which the implications are in dispute in the argument; the second is a claim presented in order to argue against deriving certain implications from that premise.".
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Barry’s Barbecue is a restaurant chain that advertises itself as a safe place for diners with food allergies to eat. At Barry’s, whenever a diner books a reservation and mentions a food allergy, the kitchen staff is prohibited from preparing multiple dishes on the same grill. This ensures that there is no cross-contamination between dishes, but also can result in longer wait times as fewer meals can be prepared than would be the case under normal circumstances.
Which of the following is best supported by the information above?
With Inference questions, the correct answer has to fit the "must be true" standard, meaning that it has to be proven based on the passage; incorrect answers "could be true" but are not necessarily true based only on the information in the passage.
Here choice "The kitchen staff at Barry’s sometimes prepares multiple dishes on the same grill." fits that standard largely because of the phrase "under normal circumstances" at the end of the stimulus. If the prohibition on preparing multiple dishes on the same grill is different from "under normal circumstances," then it must be true that "sometimes" (note: "sometimes" is a very low bar to clear for proof) multiple dishes are prepared on the same grill. Choice "The kitchen staff at Barry’s sometimes prepares multiple dishes on the same grill." is therefore correct.
In contrast, notice the strong language within choice "Barry’s will not make special kitchen accommodations for diners who do not make a reservation.", that the restaurant categorically will not make kitchen accommodations (of any type) if a diner does not make a reservation. From the stimulus you know of one particular accommodation that will be made under a reservation, but you cannot conclude that there are no other possible accommodations, or that the restaurant wouldn't try to make that accommodation if someone were to arrive without a reservation.
Choice "Not all restaurants follow food allergy precautions to avoid cross-contamination between multiple dishes." could possibly be true ("not all" is another low bar of proof) but as this stimulus only tells you about one particular accommodation that one particular restaurant makes, you just do not have evidence to support this. (Note that while "not all" is a low bar, "food allergy precautions" is fairly broad: if every restaurant, for example, takes one small precaution like washing its dishes at high heat, that would be enough to rule out "Not all restaurants follow food allergy precautions to avoid cross-contamination between multiple dishes.".)
Choice "Limiting cross-contamination from multiple dishes on the same grill is the most effective way to avoid issues for diners with food allergies." is a classic example of an Inference answer choice simply going too far, using "the most effective" when you simply do not have information to rank different precautions.
And choice "Diners with food allergies are generally willing to be patient with longer wait times in order to avoid cross-contamination between dishes." is another example of a choice that might well be true, but does not have any proof in the stimulus.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
A candy company conducted market research through a survey and a subsequent taste test. In the survey, 27% of respondents said they preferred dark chocolate, 28% said they preferred white chocolate, and 45% said they preferred milk chocolate. But when the same group participated in a taste test of the company's new product line, 60% preferred dark chocolate.
Which of the following can be inferred from the information above?
This inference problem forces you to do some math to determine which answer must be true. You know from the given information that some preferences were different between the survey and the taste test (dark chocolate went from 27% to 60%, from the lowest value to the highest, so some people must have changed their preferences from either milk or white chocolate), but each answer choice will require some analysis to determine whether it "could be true" (incorrect answer) or "must be true" (correct).
Choice "The survey participants were generally inaccurate regarding their chocolate preferences." is the qualitative answer and certainly could be true, but isn't necessarily. What if this company simply has lousy white and milk chocolate, but very good dark chocolate? The respondents could have been very accurate in relaying their general preferences, but those preferences just didn't hold in this particular case. So choice "The survey participants were generally inaccurate regarding their chocolate preferences." is incorrect.
Choice "Some people who stated a preference for white chocolate in the survey preferred dark chocolate in the taste test." is more quantitative. It certainly could be true but doesn't have to be. You know that dark chocolate went from 27% to 60%, so it picked up a net gain of 33%. This could be true if some of that gain came from white and some from milk. But since you do not have the taste test totals from white and milk you can play with different combinations. Suppose all who said dark in the survey said dark in the taste test, and then 33% defected from milk to dark. That would leave white unchanged and still give you 60% dark, just with 28% white and now 12% milk. So choice B is not necessarily true and is therefore incorrect.
Choice "Some people who preferred milk chocolate in the taste test had initially stated a preference for white chocolate in the survey." does not have to be true, either. You know that 33% of respondents switched to dark chocolate, but you do not know for certain that anyone switched between white and milk. As you will see with choice "Some people who stated a preference for milk chocolate in the survey preferred dark chocolate in the taste test."...
Choice "Some people who stated a preference for milk chocolate in the survey preferred dark chocolate in the taste test." must be true. You need a net gain of 33% moving from either white or milk to dark. And since only 28% preferred white chocolate, you can't get that 33% gain unless at the very least 5% of people changed from milk to dark.
Choice "Most participants expressed a different preference in the taste test than they had indicated in the survey." is incorrect because, again, the minimum change is 33%. All the statements could be true if everyone who liked dark in the survey stuck with dark in the taste test, and then 33% moved to dark from milk. That case satisfies all of the facts but leaves more than half of survey responses intact, thereby invalidating choice "Most participants expressed a different preference in the taste test than they had indicated in the survey.". Choice "Some people who stated a preference for milk chocolate in the survey preferred dark chocolate in the taste test." is correct.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Among the most effective ways to increase sales of an online service is to offer some form of free trial for users to experiment with before they purchase the full service. The benefit of such a practice is to encourage sales in individuals who would not buy the product without having tried it first.
Which of the following is best supported by the information given above?
As with any inference question, your job here is to understand the information given and to choose an answer choice guaranteed by the text. You are told in this stimulus to this question that free trials are meant to increase sales of the full version of an online service by giving users who would not buy the service without trying it first a chance to experiment with it. Choice "The number of people who see the free trial as an acceptable replacement for buying the online service is not greater than the number of people who buy the online service because of their experience within the free trial." is the only answer choice that is guaranteed by the text. If the number of people who find that the free trial was a good substitute is bigger than the number of people who are incentivized to buy the full online service because of the free trial, then the ability to experiment before you try the full service would not only be meaningless, it would be counter to the reason that companies offer free trials.
Among the other answers, choice "Because the cost of offering a free trial can be high, companies are often resistant to offering free trials, especially free trials that offer all features included within the paid version of the online service." can be eliminated because there is no information about what makes companies more or less likely to offer free trials. Choice "In calculating the total number of an online service sold, free trials are generally included as zero-dollar sales rather than as a separate category." can be eliminated because there is no information given about the spread of companies’ free versus paid sales. Choice "The number of sales for a given online service is directly proportional to the number of visitors to the online service's website, a number that tends to increase if a free trial is offered." can be eliminated because there is no information about whether the two values are directly proportional at all. Choice "Online services that are easily adapted to free trial versions sell better than do online services that are not readily distributed as free trials." can be eliminated for similar reasons to choice "Because the cost of offering a free trial can be high, companies are often resistant to offering free trials, especially free trials that offer all features included within the paid version of the online service.". there is no information about the importance of the ease of creating a free trial.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Last year, more copies of accounting software programs were sold than in any previous year. For the first time ever, most of the copies sold were not sold to accountants but rather to individuals doing their own taxes or planning their own family budgets. However, the most-purchased copy of accounting software was a program designed for accountants performing corporate audits.
Which of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?
The answer to this Inference problem is "Last year there were more copies of accounting software sold to non-accountants than in any previous year.". Remember - in an Inference question the correct answer must be true based on the premises, and "Last year there were more copies of accounting software sold to non-accountants than in any previous year." can be proven by the facts. You know that 1) the total number of copies of accounting software was its greatest ever and that 2) the percentage that non-accountants purchased was its greatest ever (the first time over 50%). So non-accountants purchased their greatest-ever share of the greatest-ever total, meaning that they must have purchased their greatest number of copies of accounting software ever.
Among the incorrect answer choices:
"Last year more accounting software was sold to corporations than in any previous year." very well might be true, but cannot be proven. What if the growth in accounting software was entirely due to non-accountants (perhaps this was the first-ever year that a program like TurboTax was available, and so the non-accountant software surged while several accountants went out of business and didn't purchase anything)?
"At least some non-accountants purchased the most-purchased copy of software last year." also could be true, but you certainly cannot prove it. What if the most-sold software was a must-buy for any corporation but had no appeal to individuals?
"More non-accountants purchased accounting software last year than in any previous year." is close, but note the precision in language there: all the premises are about the number of copies sold, whereas "More non-accountants purchased accounting software last year than in any previous year." draws a conclusion about the number of purchasers. What if the number of purchasers stayed the same or even decreased, but each purchaser bought multiple different copies (maybe TurboTax came with a "add on Quicken for a dollar" promotion and almost everyone who purchased one piece of software last year bought two this year?).
And "Last year fewer copies of accounting software were purchased by accountants than in the previous year." of course does not have to be true as there is no proof for it anywhere. You know that the highest total number of copies of accounting software was sold so it is difficult to believe that fewer were sold to non-accountants, and that's the only real evidence you have to get close to this conclusion.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Meditation can lead to reduced stress, increased concentration, and a longer life. And contrary to what many skeptics believe, regular meditation is more important than the duration of each session. While longer sessions produce better results, all the benefits listed above are possible from daily meditation sessions that are as short as ten minutes.
Which of the following is best supported by the statement above?
With any Inference question, you must select the answer choice that must be true based on the information in the passage. Here, several choices might seem very likely, but the "must be true" standard is crucial for inferences.
Choice "Daily meditation sessions of an hour or longer can increase one's life expectancy." must be true. The premises state that "while longer sessions produce better results, all of the above benefits (including a longer life) are possible from daily-ten minute sessions." From that, you can infer that longer sessions (an hour vs. ten minutes) would at least produce the same benefits, if not better. Additionally, note the easier-to-prove word "can" in "can increase one's life expectancy." This is much easier to prove than "will" or "only," words you see in other answer choices.
Among the other choices, choice "Mediation is only effective if it is performed on a daily basis." goes too far with "only." While the last sentence suggests that daily sessions are effective, the previous sentence uses "regular meditation" (so not necessarily "daily"), and ultimately there is nothing to suggest that even infrequent sessions are completely ineffective.
Choice "People who meditate for ten minutes each day will live longer than those who meditate less frequently." goes too far with the prediction "will" - for one, the argument doesn't give enough information to compare daily ten-minute sessions with, say, five-days-per-week hour-long sessions. But just as damning is the word "will" - predictions are just very hard to prove. Can you conceive of a situation in which people who meditate for ten minutes each day live shorter (too much radiation from their Headspace app?)? If so, "will" is not necessarily true.
Choice "It is possible to achieve as much of a gain in life expectancy from ten minutes of meditation per day as from less frequent meditation sessions of an hour or longer." is wrong for similar reasons as "Mediation is only effective if it is performed on a daily basis." is wrong: the hard fact is that "regular" meditation is more important than the duration of each session, but "regular" does not necessarily mean "daily" so this comparison is impossible to make without further information. For the same reason, choice "Meditating less frequently than once per day will lead to less positive benefits than meditating daily." is also incorrect.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Gingivitis is a disease that occurs around the teeth and that can lead to periodontitis, a condition that causes tissue destruction in the gums and even tooth loss. Studies show that diets high in vitamin C can help to both prevent gingivitis and treat periodontitis.
Which of the following is best supported by the statements above?
This Inference problem demonstrates the importance of the "Must Be True" standard for GMAT inferences. With Inference problems, you want to attack the answer choices looking to exploit small flaws, and eliminate accordingly.
Choice "People whose diets are high in vitamin C are less likely to contract periodontitis than those whose diet are low in vitamin C." is too general and emphatic a conclusion. Even though vitamin C itself can help to prevent or treat these conditions, one cannot conclude that those who consume vitamin C will be less likely to contract those conditions. Consider a hypothetical: it could be that vitamin C alone would help, but that vitamin C is often present in sugar-containing foods and most people with high vitamin C levels are also guilty of a high sugar diet that leads to even quicker gum disease. Choice "People whose diets are high in vitamin C are less likely to contract periodontitis than those whose diet are low in vitamin C." may very well be true, but if you can create a hypothetical with a case in which it would not be true, you can eliminate it.
"Periodontitis is a condition only contracted by those who have previously contracted gingivitis." is similar: it seems like it's probably true, since you're told that gingivitis "can lead to periodontitis" but you don't know that it's the only thing that can lead to the condition (as choice "Some people suffering from periodontitis do so without having contracted gingivitis." suggests). Since you're unsure whether gingivitis is the only cause, or just one of multiple potential causes, you can eliminate both "Periodontitis is a condition only contracted by those who have previously contracted gingivitis." and "Some people suffering from periodontitis do so without having contracted gingivitis.".
Choice "A periodontitis treatment plan that does not include vitamin C is less effective than a plan that does." is also not proven. There may be other plans that do not include vitamin C but that are extremely effective. Note the language in the last sentence of the stimulus, that vitamin C "can help to treat periodontitis." "Can help" is soft language that leaves plenty of room for another treatment program to be even more helpful.
Choice "Increasing the amount of vitamin C in one’s diet has helped some periodontitis patients reduce the severity of that condition." is correct, in large part because of similarly soft language. If vitamin C can help treat the condition, that means that it must have helped at least some patients in treatment. That's an easy bar to get over, and since you know for a fact that vitamin C is helpful, you can clear that bar. Choice "Increasing the amount of vitamin C in one’s diet has helped some periodontitis patients reduce the severity of that condition." is correct.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Health insurance rates have been steadily increasing in this country for decades. Though health insurance companies paid for a smaller percentage of claims last year than they did ten years ago, the overall rise in the number of claims still means that more money is being paid out, and the companies compensate for this by hiking their rates.
From the information above, it can be inferred that ten years ago
The stimulus states that "...health insurance companies paid for a smaller percentage of claims last year than they did ten years ago." This means that the companies had a greater percentage of unpaid claims last year. Put another way, they had a smaller percentage of unpaid claims ten years ago, which is what choice "the percentage of health insurance claims that were unpaid was less than last year's percentage." says.
Choice "fewer people made health insurance claims than was the case last year." is incorrect because the number of people making claims is never mentioned. One person can make several claims, so we cannot draw any inferences about the number of people.
"more claims were not paid by insurance companies than were not paid last year." is wrong because the overall number of claims and the percentage of claims not paid were both lower ten years ago. Since they were both lower, their product (Total * Percentage) would also be lower, disproving the statement that more claims were not paid.
Answer "health insurance companies paid a greater percentage of their claims than they paid twenty years ago." is incorrect because we do not have any way of knowing the difference in the percentage of claims paid for these two periods (ten years ago versus twenty years ago).
Answer "profits made by health insurance companies were similar to profits made by health insurance companies last year." is incorrect since we already know that the companies have compensated for paying more real dollars by hiking their rates, but there are too many other factors involved in determining profit to make this comparison.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Public Safety Official: In 1998, our province's highway patrol arrested nearly 25,000 motorists for driving under the influence of alcohol. Over the past 20 years we have implemented a number of legal measures to increase penalties for driving under the influence and that have increased the number of law enforcement personnel patrolling for such offenses. This past year, even though our population has increased markedly since 1998, our province saw less than 18,000 arrests - a sure sign that these legal measures have been successful in preventing motorists from driving while under the influence.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the public safety official's claims?
This argument features issues with two extremely common logical fallacies: 1) correlation vs. causation and 2) data pools that aren't necessarily comparable. If you see these elements in the gap in logic, you can anticipate the right answer.
First, notice that in the 20 years between arrest statistics that the official cites, many things could have occurred other than the laws she cites. What if, for example, alcohol tariffs made the price so exorbitant that everyone just quit drinking? Or the city built a system of canals and everyone just kayaks around town now? There could well be other causes for the statistic - the laws might be correlated with the time period, but did they really cause the outcome?
Second, notice that the use of actual-number data (25,000 arrests vs. 18,000 arrests) doesn't necessarily tie to the conclusion. Yes the number of arrests down (and the total population is up), but the conclusion is that the legislation was successful in "preventing motorists from driving under the influence." Since "motorists" is a subset of the total population, you'd really want to see a statistic that isn't just total number of arrests, but something more like arrests per 1,000 motorists" - a statistic that accounts for the fact that the number of motorists could be way down (in which case "motorists" - those who still drive - might still be driving under the influence quite frequently, but the overall statistic is down because there are simply much fewer drivers).
Given those errors in the argument, choice "Increased access to public transportation and ride-sharing applications has cut the number of drivers in the province by more than half." is correct - it shows that the number of motorists is down, and supplies an alternate cause for the drop in the number of arrests. People are using Lyft and taking the train, not driving anymore.
Among the other choices:
"The population in her province has increased at a lower rate than the populations of neighboring provinces." is irrelevant, as whether the population has grown at a high or low rate compared to other provinces, the fact remains that the population has still increased. (And really what you want to know is the number of drivers/motorists)
"The new legal measures have increased the province's law enforcement costs at nearly twice the rate that tax receipts have increased." seems like it should matter (is this a good use of money?) but remember that the specific conclusion is only about whether the laws worked, not about whether they were a wise use of funding. Always stay within the specific scope of the conclusion!
"Since 1998, the number of lawyers focusing on defending those arrested for driving under the influence has more than doubled." misses the mark because of its timing - the statistic used in the argument is about arrests, and notes that this intervention of lawyers occurs after the arrests have already taken place. If lawyers were acting before the arrests, that might suggest that the lawyers are causing the reduction in the number even though people are still drinking and driving, but that's not the case here - the lawyers in "Since 1998, the number of lawyers focusing on defending those arrested for driving under the influence has more than doubled." don't come into the picture early enough to explain away the number of arrests.
And "The number of restaurants and pubs permitted to sell alcohol in the province has increased since 1998 at approximately the same rate of the province's population." is similar - if the number of establishments serving alcohol were way down that might be part of an alternate explanation for the reduction in arrests, but with the number of restaurants and pubs serving alcohol increasing, that's not the case.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
A recent study suggests that not eating genetically modified foods can lead to a decreased risk of type 2 diabetes and heart disease. The study based this conclusion on the fact that individuals who ate only non genetically modified foods developed these conditions at lower rates than did individuals who ate both genetically modified and not genetically modified foods and concluded that the decreased risk of both diseases must be as a result of the individuals’ dietary differences.
Which of the following, if true, would weaken the conclusion that eating only non genetically modified foods leads to a lower risk of heart disease and type 2 diabetes?
As with any weaken question, your first goal should be to understand the argument presented and find the gap between the information given and the conclusion presented. In this argument, you are told that a study claims that not eating genetically modified foods (GMOs) leads to lower rates of type 2 diabetes and heart disease because people who didn't eat GMOs tend to develop type 2 diabetes and heart disease at a lower rate than do people who do eat GMOs.
The gap here is in the difference between correlation and causation. While there is a correlation between the behavior (not eating GMOs) and the outcome (not getting type 2 diabetes or heart disease), there is nothing that proves the outcome is due to the behavior. What if non-GMO foods were only available to individuals who were wealthy or who belonged to a specific ethnic group that developed both diseases at lower rates? The correct answer will exploit the gap between correlation and causation.
The only answer choice to do this is "Individuals who do not eat genetically modified foods also tend to exercise and make other healthy lifestyle choices associated with a decreased risk of both diseases.". If individuals who don't eat GMOs also engage in other activities known to lower the risk of both diseases, then it's impossible to tell if their decreased risk is due to the fact that they don't eat GMOs or the fact that they engage in these other activities. Maybe the cause of both (not eating GMOs and decreased risk) is their lifestyle, and those two effects are just correlated.
Among the other answers, "Genetically modified foods also tend to be organically grown, a process that uses fewer pesticides and artificial fertilizers than does conventional agriculture." can be eliminated because there is no way to link the practice of using pesticides or artificial fertilizers to diabetes or heart disease. Choice "Type II diabetes and heart disease are often exacerbated or triggered by poor diets, especially those high in processed grain-based foods and fat-heavy meat products." can be eliminated since it does not address anything to do with the conclusion, which is specifically about genetically modified foods. Choice "It is possible that some individuals could be naturally resistant to developing both type 2 diabetes and heart disease regardless of diet." can also be eliminated for the same reason - there is no reason that these individuals wouldn't have shown up in both groups. Choice "Other studies have examined the effects of organic food on the risk of developing both diseases, but not on the effects of genetically modified food." can be eliminated as well since whether other studies have looked at this issue doesn't impact whether or not the conclusion is correct.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Many people believe that soccer players are the most well-known athletes on the planet, citing the fact that professional soccer is televised in more countries than any other sport. This belief is misplaced, however: according to a name recognition survey, Fabricio, the star of professional soccer's AC Camarillo, is less recognized than the best players on 20 different professional basketball teams.
Which of the following most strengthens the conclusion drawn above?
If you look for the logical flaw in the argument of this Strengthen question, you should see that it is one of generalization. Based on exactly one data point - a particular soccer star is less famous than 20 different basketball players - the argument draws the general conclusion that soccer players are not the most well-known athletes in the world. But Fabricio is only one player: if this were a Strengthen question you would want to show that he is an outlier on the less-famous side (meaning that most players are far more famous than he is, so this one data point is less relevant). But since this is a Weaken question, you want to show that Fabricio is one of the most famous soccer players, so that all other players are even less famous.
Choice "Fabricio is the most well-known soccer player in the world." does exactly that, and is therefore correct: if Fabricio is the most famous soccer player, and he's less famous than 20 basketball players, then the conclusion that soccer players are not the most famous athletes is a lot more likely - Fabricio isn't the one not-famous outlier while all the others are very famous. "Fabricio is the most well-known soccer player in the world." is correct.
Among the other answer choices: choice "AC Camarillo has won its league's championship the past three consecutive seasons." doesn't link Fabricio or AC Camarillo to being well-known. If AC Camarillo is a champion in a lesser-known league, then Fabricio isn't necessarily a particularly well-known player; if the team is the champion of an extremely popular league, then it's more likely that he's among the most well-known (but you still don't know for sure).
Choice "Fabricio is less well-known than the stars of several other professional soccer teams." weakens the argument by going the opposite direction of "Fabricio is the most well-known soccer player in the world." and saying that Fabricio isn't among the most famous players in the world. Choice "The most well-known basketball players are not always the best players on their teams." would slightly strengthen the argument if it were specific to the 20 players more famous than Fabricio, as then there would be even more basketball players who are more famous than Fabricio. But since it's a generic "the most famous players are not always the best on their teams" it doesn't add any more players more famous than Fabricio and therefore has no direct bearing on the argument. And choice "No professional basketball players are also professional soccer players." is similarly generic and therefore doesn't add any new data to further the argument (if it were that the most famous basketball players ARE also soccer players then it would have a direct bearing, but as written it does not).
Compare your answer with the correct one above
A high school has found that, for each of the last 15 years, the average grade point average for members of the cross-country running teams has exceeded the average grade point average for the school as a whole. This phenomenon can most likely be attributed to the fact that long distance runners have so much time to think while running that they can essentially study as they run.
Which of the following most undermines the conclusion drawn above?
This weaken problem features a common gap in logic: a fact is given (the cross-country GPA is higher than the average GPA) and then one plausible explanation is given as the only explanation for why that fact is true. This is essentially mixing correlation for causation: because two things occur together (runners have a lot of time to think, and runners have high GPAs, the time to think must cause the GPA). The best ways to weaken one of these arguments are to find an alternate explanation or to show that the causation is reversed (it's not that time spent running causes the high GPA, but rather the high GPA leads people to run).
And choice "The cross-country team is among the few teams that do not require a tryout, making it a popular activity for high-achieving students who want to list a sport on their college applications." does exactly that - it suggests that students with high GPAs are more likely to join the cross-country team. It's not that the running makes them better students, but instead good students tend to go toward running as a way to add an extracurricular activity to their application profile. That's why choice "The cross-country team is among the few teams that do not require a tryout, making it a popular activity for high-achieving students who want to list a sport on their college applications." is correct.
Among the wrong choices:
Choice "Cross-country running is more strategic than many realize, requiring runners to expend mental energy thinking about race tactics." should be tempting, but it does not directly attack the notion that runners have a lot of time to think. An activity can be strategic and still allow time to think. Choices "Many cross-country runners are also members of the track-and-field team, for which the average grade point average is actually lower than that of the school as a whole.", "Because the nearest cross-country trails are a long distance from the school, cross-country is one of the most time-consuming activities the school offers.", and "The cross country team's average grade point average has dropped each of the last three years." each try to attack the premise, making you think that the GPA shouldn't be as high as it is. "Many cross-country runners are also members of the track-and-field team, for which the average grade point average is actually lower than that of the school as a whole." does this by grouping cross-country runners with the other track-and-field athletes, for whom the GPA is lower. But we already know that the cross-country GPA is high, so it doesn't matter which other groups you could pool them with to lower their grades. Choice "Because the nearest cross-country trails are a long distance from the school, cross-country is one of the most time-consuming activities the school offers." similarly tries to provide a reason why you wouldn't think that the GPA would be high (it's such a time-consuming activity!) but again that doesn't matter - the GPA is high, so we're just trying to determine the cause. And choice "The cross country team's average grade point average has dropped each of the last three years." tries to do this by showing that the GPA is dropping, but again it's already been established that it's higher than average, and your only job is to determine why.
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Researchers have shown that older ants, which usually spend more time gathering nourishment for the colony, tend to have larger brains than do younger ants, which usually help nurture ant larvae in the colony. Since gathering nourishment requires greater cognitive skills than does nurturing larvae, it would appear that such gathering leads to the increased brain size of older ants.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
In this argument, there is a correlation between brain size and activity of the ant – those ants that gather nourishment (which tend to be older) have larger brains than those ants that nurture larvae (which tend to be younger ants). Because of this correlation, the author concludes that the cause for this difference in size must be the increased cognitive skills required for gathering. But where is the proof for this? Perhaps there is some other attribute relating to the ants that perform these different tasks and that is the reason for the difference. What if quite simply, older ants (which perform the gathering) have larger brains than younger ants (which perform the nurturing)? Then it simply has to do with age NOT the tasks they are performing. To weaken this argument, you are looking for some other plausible explanation for the different size brains and "The brains of older ants that are not involved in gathering nourishment are the same size as those counterparts of the same age that do gather nourishment." gives that perfectly, as it suggests that indeed the difference might be explained by age alone.
For "Ants that have spent more time gathering nourishment do not have considerably larger brains than do ants that have spent a much shorter time gathering." – this does not necessarily weaken the argument. The activity the ant performs could indeed be causing the difference, but at a certain threshold, more gathering does not further increase brain size. "Ants that have spent more time gathering nourishment do not have considerably larger brains than do ants that have spent a much shorter time gathering." can be true and it does not hurt the core position of the argument. Likewise for "The brains of older ants that stop gathering nourishment to take on other tasks do not become smaller.", the author is just stating that the INCREASE in brain size is caused by the different activities – if the brain doesn’t decrease in size after stopping the activities it does not affect this conclusion. For "In many species of ants, the brains of older ants are only minimally larger than the brains of younger ants.", the degree of the difference in size is not addressed in the argument so this choice has no impact on the quality of the author’s conclusion. Similarly for "Ants that have to travel farther to gather nourishment do not have considerably larger brains than do ants that do not have to travel far.", the distance traveled is not addressed in the argument, simply what activity the ants engage in. Correct answer is "The brains of older ants that are not involved in gathering nourishment are the same size as those counterparts of the same age that do gather nourishment.".
Compare your answer with the correct one above
UCLA Sociologist: Between 1962 and 2012, the marriage rate (that is the percentage of adult women over 16 who get married for the first time each year) fell from 110 marriages a year per 1,000 unmarried women to just 37, a stunning 66 percent decline. Given this trend, there will likely be no women getting married for the first time by 2050!
Which of the following, if true, exposes a flaw in the sociologist’s reasoning?
The key in this problem is to consider some flaw with the trend that the sociologist cites. In other words, what might indicate that the trend will not continue? Consider the following scenario: 10 years ago, most women who would normally have married at 22 start waiting to get married until they are forty. Over the next twenty years, the marriage rate would go down dramatically because women are waiting to get married (and the average marriage age is going up). However, when they do decide to get married, the rate will go back up again. If this were true it would show a huge flaw in the sociologist’s reasoning so "The average age of marriage has increased dramatically in the past 20 years." is correct. For "Today’s divorce rates are expected to rise dramatically over the next 40 years." and "More women are expected to get married for a second and third time in the next 40 years." divorce rates and second/third time marriages are unimportant because the argument is only about first time marriages. "Many women are deciding to simply live with their partners rather than get married." and "Marriage is much less likely to occur today for the first time than it was in the 1960’s." would not indicate a flaw as they both seem to support the sociologist (that is the trend that marriage is disappearing). Answer is "The average age of marriage has increased dramatically in the past 20 years."
Compare your answer with the correct one above
Epidemiologist: The cancer death rate (number of deaths from cancer per 1,000 people) in the city of Maple Grove is 30% percent higher now than it was ten years ago. The corresponding increase in Fernland, where a major anti-smoking initiative was introduced a decade ago, is only 10%. These figures support the conclusion that residents of Maple Grove are more likely to die from cancer than residents of Fernland.
The epidemiologist’s conclusion is flawed because it fails to consider __________________
The epidemiologist’s argument improperly assumes that the cancer death rates were similar in the two towns ten years ago. While the rates in Maple Grove have INCREASED much more than in Fernland, what if they were much lower to begin with. Just because the rate has increased more in Maple Grove, it could easily be lower today than in Fernland. Answer choice "Whether Fernland and Maple Grove had similar cancer death rates 10 years ago." properly points out this assumption and is thus the correct answer. For "Whether the population in Maple Grove has increased dramatically in the past decade.", population growth is unimportant because it is a per capita rate. The smoking issue is a red herring in this problem (tries to steal your attention from the major data problem), so "Whether smoking is the primary cause of cancer in Fernland." and "Whether Maple Grove has ever introduced an anti-smoking initiative." are both wrong. For "Whether most cancer victims in Maple Grove survive more than 10 years.", the length of survival is also immaterial to the major data problem isolated above. Answer is "Whether Fernland and Maple Grove had similar cancer death rates 10 years ago.".
Compare your answer with the correct one above
As far back as the 1950s, research has shown that adults who participate in over 30 minutes of aerobic exercise at least three times a week have a significantly lower prevalence of respiratory illness than those who do not. In recent years, studies have consistently confirmed these same statistics. It can be concluded, therefore, that regular aerobic exercise can be helpful in preventing respiratory illness.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?
As you deconstruct this argument, you should notice a classic case of mistaking correlation (two things occur together) for causation (one causes the other). Here you're told that people who exercise regularly have a lower incidence of respiratory illness, and then the conclusion is that regular exercise helps prevent respiratory illness.
But why can't that be the other way around? Whenever a question is structured as "X and Y happen together, so X likely causes Y" you should be on the lookout for an answer choice that suggests that, actually, Y is the thing that causes X.
Answer choice "People with respiratory illnesses are generally told by doctors that they must limit or cease their aerobic exercise routines." here supplies exactly that: if people who have respiratory illness are unable to exercise, that's a possible reason for the statistics (exercise and respiratory health occur together) to be true. So by providing an alternate explanation for the premises, "People with respiratory illnesses are generally told by doctors that they must limit or cease their aerobic exercise routines." shows that the conclusion is not necessarily true. "People with respiratory illnesses are generally told by doctors that they must limit or cease their aerobic exercise routines." is correct.
"Some respiratory illnesses are hereditary and therefore minimally affected by lifestyle choices." is incorrect because the conclusion is so soft, that exercise "can be helpful in preventing" respiratory illness. Even if some respiratory illnesses cannot be prevented, choice "Some respiratory illnesses are hereditary and therefore minimally affected by lifestyle choices." does not prohibit exercise from preventing other respiratory illnesses. Note also that "Some respiratory illnesses are hereditary and therefore minimally affected by lifestyle choices." says that the hereditary respiratory illnesses are minimally affected by lifestyle choices. "Minimally affected" still allows for lifestyle choices to have an impact, which is consistent with "can be helpful" in preventing these illnesses.
"The amount of air pollution, a common cause of respiratory illness, has increased dramatically since the 1950s." and "The lengths of the average workday and commute have increased markedly since the 1950s, leaving the average person with less time for aerobic exercise." are wrong for similar reasons: they are each overruled by the facts, which state that exercise and a lack of respiratory illness have remained correlated over time, even if respiratory illness is increasing due to pollution "The amount of air pollution, a common cause of respiratory illness, has increased dramatically since the 1950s." or people in general are exercising less "The lengths of the average workday and commute have increased markedly since the 1950s, leaving the average person with less time for aerobic exercise.". You still have facts from the argument that those who do find time to exercise have less respiratory illness than those who do not, so "The amount of air pollution, a common cause of respiratory illness, has increased dramatically since the 1950s." and "The lengths of the average workday and commute have increased markedly since the 1950s, leaving the average person with less time for aerobic exercise." are countered by the given information.
"Recent studies have debunked the conventional wisdom that aerobic exercise is an effective preventer of heart disease." misses the specific scope of the conclusion, which is only about respiratory illness. The fact that exercise doesn't prevent heart disease doesn't factor in to a discussion about respiratory issues. Because heart issues and respiratory issues are two completely different categories, "Recent studies have debunked the conventional wisdom that aerobic exercise is an effective preventer of heart disease." does not directly address the conclusion about respiratory issues.
Compare your answer with the correct one above