In the two previous posts we discussed two of the three argument types around which Strengthen-Weaken question of GMAT Critical Reasoning are posed — Plan of Action and X causes Y .The third type is also X causes Y but an argument built on Correlation-Causation and hence it is better to classify it as the Correlation-Causation type.
In the previous post on the Strengthen-Weaken question type, we discussed that there were three argument types around which strengthen-weaken type of questions are posed Plan of Action (PoA) X causes Y Correlation-Causation We discussed the PoA type of argument in that post, in this one we will look at the second type – X causes Y.
We have covered almost all the Critical Reasoning question types on the blog. A few readers had asked for specific posts on the Strengthen/Weaken Type, so the next few posts will cover these two question types in detail. Strengthen/Weaken question types together constitute the maximum number of questions out of the 13-15 Critical Reasoning questions you will encounter on the Verbal section of the GMAT. Strengthen/Weaken questions are usually broadly based on three types of argument structures: Plan of Action X causes Y Correlation-Causation We will take up one argument structure at a time and discuss the process to solve each type.
As most test-takers would know a majority of the Critical Reasoning questions you will encounter will belong to the Strengthen-Weaken Type — out of the 13-14 Critical Reasoning questions you will encounter at the least 5 will be from these two types. You will posed with 1-2 questions from each of the other question types. While the Boldfaced Question, is most famous and understandably toughest question type, which we discussed in this post, the Complete The Passage question is the least understood of question types.
Arguably the toughest GMAT Critical Reasoning question-type, the boldfaced question is feared by many GMAT test-takers. In fact many test-takers feel very good if they encounter a boldfaced question on test-day since they link it to having performed well on the test — if it is the toughest question type then getting a boldfaced question means that one has successfully answered the medium-level questions.
The Evaluate Question Type on the GMAT® is perhaps the question type that best tests your technique on Critical Reasoning questions. Whatever the question type there two things that are a must-do if you want to develop a flawless technique to answer GMAT® Critical Reasoning Questions: • Precisely Identify The Argument • Clearly Define What The Right Option Should Do The answer options on this question type are always framed in the form of questions. So the best way to tackle this question is to evaluate the argument with respect to answer to each question.
In the previous post on Critical Reasoning we looked at the method of tackling statistics-based CR questions on the GMAT®. Let us look at another statistics-based questions to reinforce our learning. As discussed in the previous post, the answer to a statistics-based question will either be a statistic or an interpretation of the stat being discussed in the argument. More often than not, test-takers answer these questions incorrectly because they do not take time out to understand the stat being discussed. The GMAT® question below is the best example.
Critical Reasoning questions on the GMAT® , often have questions that have some stats. The most important thing to remember is that stats-based questions have stats-based answers or answers that require an interpretation of the stats. So answer options that give explanations that do not have a statistical implication can easily be ruled out. Let us look at the question below.
Of all Critical Reasoning Question Types on the GMAT® , the Inference question is probably the easiest one after the Conclusion Type. The easiest inference questions are like Chemistry experiments, if green fumes come out it must contain ammonia (or whatever is green). Let us look at the question below: A company’s two divisions performed with remarkable consistency over the past three years: in each of those years, the pharmaceuticals division has accounted for roughly 20 percent of dollar sales and 40 percent of profits, and the chemicals division for the balance.
In the previous post, we took up an Assumption Question for discussion. The objective was to try to correctly apply The Negation Method to a tough question and eliminate the trap options; so let’s dive in.