Introduction to GMAT Critical Reasoning (with Practice Questions)

From all the evidence given, it seems that BCC (and the independent consultants) have taken all costs into account, and the analysis reveals that they will reap a considerable profit. In order to call this into question, we have to come up with some major unanticipated cost that would not be something already considered in this analysis.

(D) is the credited answer. First of all, laser printers and photocopiers are very common devices in office spaces, so we good reason to think that many of Megalimpet’s tenants will use these. If the toner degrades the carpet, that’s a huge additional expense for BCC, because their contract includes “ongoing maintenance” — i.e. replacing any carpet that needs replacing. Finally, nothing in the argument stem gives us any indication that this problem was on anybody’s radar, so this well could be an unexpected or unanticipated expense for BCC. Therefore, it most calls into question the idea that BCC will make a huge profit.

(A) & (C) are all expenses that would have been very clear to BCC and to its independent consultants, and therefore all of these would have had to have been taken into account when the financial analysis of the bid was made. There is no reason any of these expenses would be unanticipated.

(B) speaks to BCC previous experience, which, if anything, would tend to suggest they know what they are talking about. If anything, this would tend to strengthen the argument, not weaken it.

(E) only compares BCC to the second lowest bid, but we have no idea about that company, what it did or did not take into account in their bid, and what their overall costs might be. There are too many unknowns for this piece of information, by itself, to have any substantial impact on the argument.

Answer = D

The statement by the front office of the baseball franchise seems, on the surface, not to take the basic facts into account. If we want to strengthen this position, there must be some alternate explanation for the drop in attendance.

Part of strengthening the franchise’s position would be weakening the original position: namely, that the team’s poor play explains the drop in attendance.

(C) is the credited answer. If other minor league teams also experience a drop this week, there must be something global in this market affecting all teams. We don’t know what this factor is, but it’s something that touches all teams, not just those that played bad last week. This provides a cogent alternative explanation, even though we don’t know the specific nature of the factor causing the drop in attendance.

Both (A) & (D) strengthen the original position, namely, that the team’s poor play explains the drop in attendance. In order to strengthen the baseball franchise’s position, we have to weaken this original position.

Choice (B) essentially accuses the baseball franchise of lying, or at least bluffing, which hardly strengthens their position.

Choice (E) simply adds to the paradox: if the closest MLB team is far away and folks typically don’t go there, then there would be more demand for the local minor league baseball. Given that demands, a drop in attendance doesn’t make as much sense. This choice adds to the confusing without explaining anything.

Answer = C

The evidence says: all the ETS hackers were FANTOD programmers. What the colleges seem to be assuming is the converse: all FANTOD programmers are hackers. Of course, there is no direct evidence for this converse. Presumably there are some students who learn FANTOD in good faith and who are not hackers, but because of the assumption the colleges are making, these students are faced with extra challenges, such as having their justly achieved SAT scores disregarded and being forced to take additional admission tests.

(C) is the credited answer. Since there is no evidence for the converse statement, we have reason to believe there are FANTOD programmers who are entirely innocent of any hacking, yet those very students will have their perfectly valid SAT scores dismissed and will have to take a new test to achieve admission: this certainly would not be fun, would not be fair, and could place them at a disadvantage with respect to all the non-programming students who could just take the ordinary SATs and be done with all testing.

(A) assumes too much based on the information provided in the prompt. Specifically, we only know about a specific group of those with FANTOD knowledge: those who used it to hack into ETS. Therefore, we cannot make any airtight conclusions about “most people”. It is very possible that most people who know FANTOD use it for purposes other than hacking.

(B) might be true, but it’s much too broad. This is about the much larger issue of what is the best way for colleges to determine who should be admitted. This entire argument is focused quite specifically on the FANTOD programmers and the issues associated with them.

We have absolutely no evidence for (D). All we know is that, whatever scores those hackers achieved on the real SAT, they falsified the records to make them higher. We don’t know if those scores were already high, and we certainly can draw no conclusion about all the students who know how to program in FANTOD who are not hackers. In fact, one might suspect the opposite, that folks bright enough to figure out this sophisticated programming language might be more intelligent and more successful on average, but even that we strictly can’t assume. Therefore, we can’t draw a clear conclusion about this.

(E) is a tricky one. We are told that some colleges took a certain set of special measures. We are given no information on what the other colleges did. Did they take another set of special measures? Did they not address the issue at all? We don’t know. Therefore, we can’t draw a clear conclusion along these lines.

Answer = C

The argument makes a number of factual statements. Art in the first half of the 20th century are, or could be considered, beautiful. Works by artists in the latter half of the 20th century are not supposed to be beautiful, and even, are supposed to be devoid of beauty. Then the argument draws a bold powerful conclusion: therefore, they are not art! The assumption seems to be something that links beauty to whether something qualifies as art. We definitely need an answer to speak to the question: what does, or doesn’t, qualify as art?

(C) is credited answer. If something needs to be beautiful, or potentially beautiful, to qualify as art, then this would explain that works that “no one could find beautiful” would fall outside the author’s definition of art.

The other answers are all quite tempting, because we could imagine an art professor or someone in an art class arguing for any one of them.

(A) is irrelevant. Critics & the general public might have different appraisals, but what one or the other thinks does not, in and of itself, seem to determine whether something is art.

(B) is also irrelevant: who determines the meaning is a separate question from whether the work qualifies at art in the first place. (BTW, exceedingly few modern critics would accept the interpretive idea contained in choice .)

(D) is undeniably true, but not relevant: again: it provides no standard by which we could say the former objects are art and the latter objects aren’t.

(E) is a far-flung idea, unrelated to the discussion. The passage doesn’t address the issue of whether any works of art are intellectually engaging.

Answer = C

Answer = C

The credited answer is choice (D). If the researcher was able to conclude anything about how an impulse purchase made someone feel, then the researcher first had to know that it was an impulse purchase, that is, that the purchase was not planned. If the researcher had no way to determine whether a purchase was planned or unplanned, then the researcher would have no way of determining which purchases were impulse purchases.

We know the consumer find the impulse purchase of a luxury item more exciting than the planned purchases. We don’t necessarily know how exciting the impulse purchase of an essential need is—maybe it’s less exciting than the impulse purchase of a luxury item, or maybe it’s just as exciting. We suspect from real life that this may be true, but we cannot determine this from information in the prompt, so it can’t be the answer to a “must be true question.” Thus, choice (A) is incorrect.

We only know about the excitement brought about by an impulse purchase of a luxury item, but we have no information about what happens if a purchase is planned but not made. Choice (B) inappropriate extends the pattern into situations the prompt doesn’t cover at all. Choice (B) is incorrect.

We know that the impulse purchase of a luxury item is exciting, but we don’t know whether this is sufficient inducement for a person seeking excitement to make this kind of purchase frequently. The expense, for example, might be a mitigating factor. We can conclude nothing for certain about this, so choice (C) is incorrect.

This is a tempting one—we certainly might suspect that the luxury items of higher price would be bought as impulse purchases less frequently. We might suspect this, but notice that the prompt says nothing about high price vs. low price items. This answer choice invites us to bring in irrelevant outside knowledge, so, like (A), it can’t be the answer to a “must be true question.” Choice (E) is incorrect.

Answer = D

This is an EXCEPT question. Four of the answer will be perfectly valid explanations, and these will be incorrect. One of the answers will not be good explanation—either it will be irrelevant, or it may even suggest a rise instead of a decline; this oddball choice will be the correct answer.

The credited answer is (B). The new filing system, in essence, never misses the report of a violent crime. This at least implies that perhaps the previous filing system missed some violent crimes on occasion—for whatever reason, some violent crimes that took place slipped through the cracks and failed to be reported. Well, if we were not reporting everything before, and are reporting everything now, if anything this might suggest an increase in the number of reported violent crimes. It most certainly would not, by itself, explain a decrease. This is not in any way a good explanation, so this the correct answer.

We know, over the past decade, “the average income in the city has risen substantially” and “a tremendous amount of capital has flowed into city,” both of which indicate conditions of prosperity. Therefore, according to choice (A), white-collar crimes would increase, and street-crimes would decrease, with a concomitant drop in violent crimes. Choice (A) is a valid explanation, so it’s an incorrect answer.

If the state kept convicts in jail longer, that would mean fewer of them would be back out on the streets committing felonies, most of which are violent. Therefore, it would lead to a drop in the number of violent crimes. Choice (C) is a valid explanation, so it’s an incorrect answer.

Better police and better crime detection means more arrests and fewer violent crimes. Therefore, it would lead to a drop in the number of violent crimes. Choice (D) is a valid explanation, so it’s an incorrect answer.

Better lighting at night and security cameras have some effect in reducing crime. Choice (E) is a valid explanation, so it’s an incorrect answer.

Answer = B

Remains of prehistoric fire were found in Tanzania. The author says that Homo erectus made these fires, and that there’s no reason to assume Homo ergaster did. What is a necessary assumption?

The credited answer is choice (A). Homo erectus had to be as far south as Tanzania—if they were not, there would be no way they could have made those fires there, which would seem to indicate that Homo ergaster made them after all. Negating this statement devastates the argument, which is a confirmation that we have an assumption.

Whatever might have caused Homo erectus to master fire doesn’t clarify who made those fires in Tanzania: Homo erectus or Homo ergaster? Choice (B) is not correct.

Suppose Homo ergaster would have derived as much benefit from the master of fire as did the Homo erectus, or even more benefit. That fact, by itself, would imply nothing about which one of these species created those fires in Tanzania. Denying this doesn’t change the validity of the argument. Choice (C) is not correct.

Choice (D) is intriguing, because it may be true. Both Homo erectus and Homo ergaster evolved from Homo habilis, so it’s quite likely that the Homo habilis was the sole source of cultural knowledge for either of these species. BUT, we know that Homo erectus, presumably without the benefit of cultural knowledge about fire, was able to master fire. If Homo erectus did that, why couldn’t Homo ergaster? In other words, the limits of the cultural knowledge inherited does not necessarily set limits on what these human species could achieve. Therefore, we can draw no conclusion with respect to this argument. Choice (D) is not correct.

If Choice (E) were true, it would support the argument, but a supporting statement is not necessarily an assumption. We have to use the Negation Test. Suppose Homo ergaster was all over in Tanzania, before & during & after the time that those fires were created. Would that prove Homo ergaster started those fires? Not necessarily. It could still be true that both Homo ergaster and Homo erectus occupied that region, that only the latter had mastered fire, and therefore, that the later had to start those fires in Tanzania. Thus, we can deny choice and it doesn’t necessarily contradict the argument. Therefore, it is not an assumption. Choice (E) is not correct.

Answer = A

The credited answer is choice (D). If the town of Dryadia really does flood, then that’s the reason insurers won’t write flood insurance for it! Therefore, the “only reason” cannot be “its similarity to Bayside in terms of where it is situated in the river valley.” Choice (D), if true, obliterates the argument, so this is the best answer.

The argument say that “most insurers” don’t write flood insurance in either town, but if most don’t, this implies that some do. Therefore, choice (A) is actually expected from the argument and does not challenge it at all. Choice (A) is incorrect.

Choice (B) would not be surprising and could be perfectly consistent with the argument. We know Bayside had “catastrophic flooding“, but we don’t know for a fact that every single house was flooded—maybe or maybe not. If some houses were not flooded, it sounds as if the insurers don’t write flood insurance for any house in Bayside, so even those houses that never flooded could not buy flood insurance. Therefore, this would validate (B) without threatening the argument in any way. Choice (B) is incorrect.

Choice (C) is irrelevant. Even if no resident in absolutely any other town up and down the Katonic River Valley can buy flood insurance, that doesn’t necessarily shed light on why folks in a town in a completely different river valley can’t buy insurance. Choice (C) is incorrect.

Choice (E) is too general and vague. Yes, perhaps there are many ways a house can be flooded, and correspondingly, perhaps there are many reasons why an insurer would deny any particular house flood insurance. Even if this is true, it doesn’t shed any light on exactly why the folks in Dryadia have trouble getting flood insurance. Choice (E) is suggestive, but it doesn’t actually tell us anything. Choice (E) is incorrect.

Answer = D