- Which of the following would be most helpful to determine in evaluating whether the proposed rebate program will significantly lower residential water consumption?
Answer: Whether lawns account for the majority of residential water consumption in the municipality during dry months
When you encounter GMAT questions about evaluating proposals or programs, focus on identifying what information would directly measure whether the program can achieve its stated goal. Here, the goal is to "significantly lower residential water consumption," so you need to determine what factor would most directly impact that outcome.
Choice (A) is correct because it addresses the fundamental question of impact potential. If lawns account for the majority of residential water usage during dry months, then replacing them with drought-tolerant plants could create substantial water savings. However, if lawns represent only a small fraction of residential water use, even a successful program wouldn't significantly reduce overall consumption. This information is essential to evaluate whether the program can meet its objective.
Choice (B) focuses on implementation logistics rather than effectiveness. Supply chain issues might delay the program but don't tell us whether it would reduce water consumption once implemented.
Choice (C) examines popularity in other areas, but popularity doesn't equal water savings. A program could be popular yet ineffective at reducing consumption, or unpopular yet highly effective for those who participate.
Choice (D) addresses maintenance knowledge, which might affect long-term success but doesn't determine the program's potential to significantly reduce water usage. Even with some maintenance failures, the program could still achieve substantial water savings.
Strategy tip: In evaluation questions, always identify the specific goal first, then ask which answer choice provides information most directly relevant to measuring whether that goal can be achieved. Avoid choices that focus on logistics, popularity, or secondary concerns rather than core effectiveness.
- What would be most helpful to know when evaluating whether adding electric bikes will indeed raise overall ridership?
Answer: Whether most potential riders cite challenging terrain as the main reason for not using the service
This is a classic GMAT critical reasoning question testing your ability to evaluate an argument's assumptions. When a company claims a specific change will achieve a desired outcome, you need to identify what information would best test whether that causal relationship actually exists.
The bicycle program argues that electric bikes will raise overall ridership because they make hills easier, thus attracting people who currently avoid challenging terrain. For this logic to work, the program assumes that difficult terrain is actually a major barrier preventing people from using the service. Choice A directly tests this crucial assumption by asking whether most potential riders cite challenging terrain as their main deterrent. If they don't—if people avoid the service for other reasons like cost, convenience, or safety—then adding electric bikes won't meaningfully increase ridership.
Choice B focuses on maintenance logistics, which affects operational costs but doesn't help evaluate whether electric bikes will attract new riders. Choice C addresses speed regulations, which might impact the riding experience but doesn't test the core assumption about terrain being the primary barrier. Choice D examines charging infrastructure requirements, which is important for implementation but again doesn't help determine whether the fundamental premise about terrain-related deterrence is valid.
Remember: in argument evaluation questions, look for the choice that tests the argument's key assumption rather than peripheral operational details. The most helpful information directly challenges or confirms the logical link between the proposed cause (easier rides) and the predicted effect (higher ridership).
- Which of the following would best help determine whether the bookstore's strategy is likely to succeed?
Answer: Whether nearby office workers currently have lunch breaks long enough to attend 30-minute readings without arriving late to work afterward
When evaluating business strategies, you need to identify the most fundamental assumption that could make or break the plan. This question tests your ability to spot the critical success factor among several plausible considerations.
The bookstore's strategy hinges on a basic logistical assumption: that office workers can actually attend these events during their lunch breaks. If nearby workers don't have sufficient time to attend a 30-minute reading and return to work punctually, the entire strategy collapses before any other factors matter. Choice A directly tests this fundamental prerequisite, making it the best way to determine if the strategy can succeed.
Choice B focuses on authors' social media followings, but this misses the point. Even popular authors won't draw crowds if the timing doesn't work for the target audience. Social media presence doesn't guarantee local, lunchtime attendance.
Choice C examines volume discounts from publishers, which affects profit margins but doesn't determine whether people will actually show up. The strategy could fail even with great wholesale pricing if no one attends.
Choice D looks at other bookstores' experiences with lunchtime events, but success elsewhere doesn't guarantee success here. Different neighborhoods have different office cultures, break schedules, and foot traffic patterns.
Strategy tip: On GMAT Critical Reasoning questions about business plans, always look for the answer choice that addresses the most basic operational assumption. Before considering optimization factors like pricing or marketing, ask yourself: "What fundamental condition must be true for this plan to even be possible?"
- To evaluate the firm's plan, it would be most helpful to know whether
Answer: the buildings' current air-conditioning systems already operate close to their minimum possible energy consumption levels
When you encounter a "plan evaluation" question, you need to identify what information would most directly determine whether the proposed strategy will achieve its intended goal. The firm's goal here is to cut electricity costs by reducing air-conditioning usage through cooler roofs.
Choice A is correct because it addresses the fundamental assumption underlying the entire plan. If the air-conditioning systems are already operating at peak efficiency (minimum energy consumption), then even cooler roofs won't significantly reduce electricity usage. The systems would barely decrease their already-optimized energy draw, making the roof painting ineffective at cutting costs. Conversely, if the systems aren't operating efficiently, cooler roofs could meaningfully reduce their workload and energy consumption.
Choice B is wrong because ownership versus leasing affects who pays for implementation, not whether the plan will work. The physical effectiveness of white roofs doesn't depend on ownership structure.
Choice C introduces a cost consideration but doesn't help evaluate whether the core strategy will succeed. Higher maintenance costs would affect net savings but wouldn't determine if the cooling effect actually reduces air-conditioning usage.
Choice D focuses on future energy prices, which would affect the dollar value of any savings but doesn't address whether the plan will generate energy savings in the first place.
Strategy tip: On GMAT evaluation questions, prioritize answer choices that test the plan's fundamental assumptions or mechanisms. Ask yourself: "What could prevent this plan from working as intended?" rather than focusing on secondary factors like costs, timing, or ownership details.
- Which of the following would be most relevant to evaluating whether the district's assumption is sound?
Answer: Whether students have previously purchased fruit when it was offered alongside traditional snacks at the same price
When evaluating assumptions in GMAT Critical Reasoning, you need to identify what evidence would directly test whether the assumption is valid. The district assumes that convenience alone will drive students to choose fruit over traditional snacks.
The correct answer is A because it directly tests this assumption. If students have previously chosen fruit when it was equally convenient and priced alongside traditional options, this supports the assumption. If they haven't, it suggests convenience isn't enough to change behavior, weakening the plan's foundation. This choice isolates the key variable—student preference when convenience is equal.
Answer B is wrong because supply chain logistics don't address whether students will actually choose fruit. The district could have perfect fruit supply but still fail if students don't want it. Answer C focuses on teacher beliefs about nutrition's effects on behavior, which is irrelevant to testing student food choices. Answer D concerns operational capacity for fruit management, but again, this doesn't help evaluate whether students will select fruit over other snacks.
The key distinction is between implementation concerns (B and D) and the core behavioral assumption. Choice C tests a different assumption entirely about nutrition's classroom impact.
Remember this pattern: when a question asks you to evaluate an assumption, look for the answer choice that would provide the most direct evidence for or against that specific assumption. Eliminate choices that address different assumptions or focus on implementation rather than the underlying behavioral claim.
- In evaluating the likelihood that the nonprofit's plan will succeed, it would be most useful to determine
Answer: whether donors who receive personalized emails tend to give larger amounts, on average, than those who receive generic emails
When evaluating business plans or strategic changes, you need to focus on whether the proposed change will actually achieve the stated goal. Here, the nonprofit's goal is to "raise more donations," and their strategy assumes personalization increases response rates.
The correct answer is A because it directly addresses whether the plan will succeed in raising more donations. Even if personalized emails generate more responses, the plan only works if those responses translate into meaningfully higher donation amounts. If personalized emails get more replies but smaller donations, the strategy could actually reduce total fundraising revenue. Answer A gets to the heart of whether this approach will achieve the organization's primary objective.
Let's examine why the other options miss the mark: B focuses on implementation costs rather than effectiveness - knowing the time investment doesn't tell you whether the strategy will raise more money. C provides background context about current funding sources but doesn't help evaluate whether personalization will improve results. D addresses a technical requirement for implementation but again doesn't speak to whether the approach will be successful in generating more donations.
Remember that on GMAT Critical Reasoning questions asking what would be "most useful to determine," prioritize information that directly tests the core assumption or goal. Don't get distracted by operational details or tangential factors. Ask yourself: "What piece of information would most clearly show whether this plan will work as intended?" Focus on the primary objective, not the supporting logistics.
- Which of the following would be most important to know to evaluate the prediction made by the state government?
Answer: Whether consumers of luxury goods in the state can easily purchase such goods in neighboring states or online to avoid the tax increase
When evaluating predictions about policy outcomes, you need to identify what critical information could make the prediction succeed or fail. The government predicts that raising luxury goods tax from 8% to 10% won't meaningfully reduce sales, allowing them to collect more revenue.
The correct answer is A because consumer alternatives directly threaten this prediction. If luxury goods buyers can easily avoid the tax by purchasing online or crossing state borders, sales within the state would indeed drop meaningfully, undermining the revenue increase. This information is crucial for evaluating whether the prediction holds true.
Let's examine why the other options are less relevant: B focuses on past performance of different taxes (non-luxury goods), but different product categories have different demand elasticities, making this comparison unreliable for predicting luxury goods behavior. C addresses tax collection efficiency, which affects administrative costs but doesn't help evaluate whether sales will remain stable—the core of the government's prediction. D considers retailer support, but their public position doesn't determine actual consumer purchasing behavior or sales outcomes.
Remember that "evaluate the prediction" questions require you to identify what unknown information would most directly confirm or refute the stated prediction. Look for factors that could fundamentally alter the assumed relationship—in this case, between tax rates and sales volume. The ability to avoid the tax entirely represents the most direct threat to the government's assumption that higher rates won't reduce in-state luxury goods purchases.
- Which of the following would be most useful to know in assessing whether the proposed fare structure will achieve the agency's objective?
Answer: What percentage of current peak-hour riders have flexible work schedules that would permit them to travel at off-peak times
When you encounter a question asking what information would be "most useful to know" for evaluating a proposed solution, you're being tested on your ability to identify the critical assumption underlying that solution. The transit agency's plan assumes that people can shift their travel times in response to price changes, but this assumption needs validation.
Choice A directly addresses this core assumption by asking about rider flexibility. If most peak-hour riders have rigid work schedules and cannot travel at different times, then changing fare prices won't redistribute ridership regardless of how attractive the off-peak pricing becomes. This information is essential to assess whether the strategy can work at all.
Choice B focuses on overall ridership increases in other cities, but the agency's stated objective is redistributing existing ridership, not necessarily increasing total ridership. This data wouldn't directly indicate whether overcrowding was reduced during peak hours.
Choice C examines administrative costs of fare collection, which is irrelevant to whether the pricing strategy will achieve the stated goal of evening out ridership patterns throughout the day.
Choice D addresses procedural requirements for future fare changes, but the question asks about assessing the current proposal's likelihood of success, not about implementation logistics.
Strategy tip: In "useful to know" questions, look for the answer choice that tests the plan's fundamental assumption. Ask yourself: "What must be true for this solution to work?" The choice that addresses whether that crucial condition exists is typically correct.
- Which of the following would be most useful to know when assessing whether the comment sections will indeed lead to longer average visit durations?
Answer: Whether the majority of the outlet's current readers typically read news on mobile devices where typing comments is less convenient
When you encounter a GMAT question asking what information would be "most useful to know" for evaluating a plan's effectiveness, you need to identify which factor would most directly impact whether the intended outcome will occur.
The outlet's goal is clear: increase visit duration through comment sections. For this to work, readers must actually use the comment feature. Choice A addresses the fundamental prerequisite—whether readers can practically engage with comments. If most readers use mobile devices where typing is inconvenient, they're unlikely to participate in discussions, making the entire strategy ineffective regardless of other factors.
Let's examine why the other options miss the mark. Choice B about moderation addresses comment quality, but poor moderation would likely become apparent only after implementation—it doesn't help assess whether the basic strategy will work. Choice C focuses on advertiser preferences, which relates to revenue rather than the stated goal of increasing visit duration. Choice D examines social media sharing on competitor sites, but sharing behavior doesn't directly indicate whether comment sections increase time spent reading individual articles.
Notice how A directly connects to the causal mechanism the outlet is banking on: that interactive discussion will keep people on the site longer. If the primary user base can't easily interact, this mechanism fails from the start.
Strategy tip: In "evaluate the plan" questions, prioritize information that tests the core assumptions underlying the proposed strategy. Ask yourself: what must be true for this plan to work as intended?
- Which of the following would most help in evaluating whether the switch to CNG will indeed reduce overall fuel expenses for the company?
Answer: Whether routes commonly driven by the company have enough CNG refueling stations within the trucks' operating ranges
When evaluating business decisions like fuel switching, you need to focus on factors that directly impact the core objective—in this case, reducing overall fuel expenses. The key is identifying what could make or break the cost savings calculation.
Choice A correctly identifies the most critical evaluation factor. If CNG refueling stations aren't accessible along the company's regular routes, trucks would need costly detours or might run out of fuel entirely. This infrastructure limitation could eliminate any fuel cost savings and create additional operational expenses. Without adequate refueling access, the entire cost-reduction strategy fails regardless of CNG's price advantages.
Choice B focuses on marketing benefits rather than cost evaluation. While environmental branding might provide indirect value, it doesn't help determine whether fuel expenses will actually decrease.
Choice C addresses maintenance costs, which could affect overall expenses. However, maintenance represents a smaller portion of total operating costs compared to fuel accessibility. A truck that can't refuel efficiently negates any maintenance savings.
Choice D mentions tax incentives, which could improve the financial picture but aren't essential for evaluating the core fuel cost reduction. The company's primary goal is fuel savings, and tax benefits are secondary considerations that don't address whether the fundamental switch will work operationally.
Remember: In GMAT evaluation questions, prioritize factors that directly enable or prevent the stated objective. Look for what could cause the entire plan to fail before considering secondary benefits or minor cost adjustments.
- What information would be most relevant to assessing whether the grocer's plan will reduce overall waste-disposal costs?
Answer: Whether transportation of the donated food to charities will cost less than the current expense of sending it to landfills
When you encounter a question asking what information would help assess a specific outcome, focus on what directly impacts that outcome. Here, the grocer claims the donation plan will "lower disposal fees," so you need to evaluate what affects the total cost of waste disposal.
The correct answer is A because it directly compares the two cost scenarios. The grocer's claim about reducing disposal costs only makes sense if transporting food to charities costs less than the current method of sending waste to landfills. Without this cost comparison, you can't determine whether the plan actually saves money on disposal. This gets to the heart of the economic argument.
Choice B is wrong because packaging standards for donations don't affect disposal costs—they relate to food safety and charity requirements, not the financial comparison between disposal methods. Choice C focuses on employee training costs, which would be a one-time expense for implementing the program rather than ongoing disposal costs. While training might be necessary, it doesn't help assess whether the disposal cost claim is valid. Choice D addresses marketing benefits and customer loyalty, which are separate business advantages unrelated to the specific question of disposal cost savings.
Remember that GMAT Critical Reasoning questions often test your ability to identify what's directly relevant to the conclusion. When a passage makes a specific claim (like cost reduction), look for answer choices that provide information needed to evaluate that exact claim, not broader or tangential considerations.
- Which of the following would it be most helpful to know when evaluating whether the library system's strategy will boost circulation?
Answer: Whether most patrons with low borrowing rates currently owe outstanding fines on their accounts
When you encounter GMAT Critical Reasoning questions asking what would be "most helpful to know" for evaluating a plan, you're dealing with an assumption or evaluation question. You need to identify what missing information would most directly test whether the proposed strategy will work.
The library's strategy assumes that fear of fines is what prevents people from borrowing books. To evaluate this assumption, you need to know whether the people who aren't borrowing much actually have outstanding fines that might be deterring them.
Choice A is correct because it directly tests the library's core assumption. If most low-borrowing patrons do have outstanding fines, this supports the theory that fines discourage borrowing, making the strategy promising. If they don't have fines, then fear of fines isn't the real barrier, and eliminating them won't help circulation.
Choice B focuses on budget implications, which doesn't help evaluate whether the strategy will increase circulation—that's a separate concern about implementation costs. Choice C examines staff workload at other libraries, but workload changes don't tell us whether circulation actually increased. Choice D asks about extended hours, but since that's an additional change beyond removing fines, it wouldn't help isolate whether eliminating fines alone boosts circulation.
Strategy tip: In evaluation questions, look for the choice that most directly tests the plan's underlying assumption. Ask yourself: "What would I need to know to determine if this plan addresses the real problem?" The right answer usually provides a way to confirm or challenge the reasoning behind the proposed solution.
- Which of the following would it be most helpful to know in order to assess the managers' claim?
Answer: Whether the additional cabin duties will delay flight attendants from performing mandatory pre-flight safety checks
When you encounter a question asking what would be "most helpful to know" to assess a claim, you're dealing with an assumption or evaluation question. You need to identify what critical information could strengthen or weaken the managers' argument.
The managers claim that having flight attendants clean cabins will reduce turnaround time and increase daily flights. For this plan to work, the flight attendants must be able to complete cleaning faster than the current crews AND still perform their other essential duties without delays.
Answer choice A identifies the key potential flaw: if cabin cleaning delays flight attendants from completing mandatory pre-flight safety checks, the plan could actually increase turnaround time rather than decrease it. This directly challenges whether the proposed change will achieve its stated goal, making it the most relevant information needed to assess the claim.
The wrong answers miss this crucial connection. Answer choice B focuses on passenger perception of cleanliness, which doesn't affect turnaround time or flight frequency. Answer choice C asks about the current cleaning crews' other contracts, which is irrelevant to whether the new system will be faster. Answer choice D addresses gate availability, but even if gates are available early, that doesn't help if the new cleaning process creates bottlenecks elsewhere in the turnaround process.
Remember: in evaluation questions, look for information that directly tests whether the proposed cause will actually produce the claimed effect. The most helpful information typically reveals potential obstacles or confirms necessary conditions for success.
- Which of the following questions would be most relevant to evaluating whether the corporation's plan will achieve the intended reduction in turnover?
Answer: Do most employees cite commuting stress as a primary reason for considering leaving the company?
When evaluating whether a proposed solution will achieve its intended goal, you need to identify the key assumption linking the proposed action to the desired outcome. The corporation assumes that remote work will improve job satisfaction and reduce turnover, but this only works if the current workplace conditions that remote work addresses are actually driving employees to leave.
Choice A directly tests this crucial assumption by asking whether commuting stress—something remote work would eliminate—is actually a primary reason employees consider leaving. If employees are leaving for reasons unrelated to what remote work solves (like poor management, low pay, or limited advancement opportunities), then the remote work policy won't address the real causes of turnover.
Choice B is incorrect because IT budget concerns are about implementation costs, not whether the plan will be effective at reducing turnover. The question asks about achieving the goal, not about feasibility or expenses.
Choice C is wrong because what competitors offer doesn't determine whether this company's specific remote work policy will solve their turnover problem. Even if competitors offer full remote work, partial remote work could still be effective if it addresses the root causes of this company's turnover.
Choice D is irrelevant because holiday scheduling flexibility is different from regular remote work policies, and past experiments don't indicate whether this current plan addresses the actual reasons employees leave.
Strategy tip: In evaluation questions, focus on whether the proposed solution actually addresses the underlying problem. Look for answer choices that test the key assumptions connecting the action to the intended result.
- To evaluate the executives' reasoning, it would be most important to know
Answer: whether most pastries left unsold by 2:00 p.m. are currently discarded at the end of the day
When evaluating business reasoning on the GMAT, you need to identify what additional information would most directly test the core assumption behind the proposed strategy.
The executives assume that discounting pastries after 2:00 p.m. will boost sales by attracting new customers. The key insight is understanding what happens to those pastries currently. If most pastries left unsold by 2:00 p.m. are discarded at the end of the day (choice B), then the discount strategy makes strong economic sense—the café can generate some revenue from items that would otherwise produce zero income. However, if those pastries aren't typically wasted, the discount might cannibalize full-price sales without providing the assumed benefit.
Choice A focuses on profit margins, but even if discounted pastries remain profitable, this doesn't tell us whether the strategy will actually increase overall revenue or just reduce margins on existing sales. Choice C about competitor pricing is relevant to market positioning but doesn't evaluate whether the core assumption—that discounts will attract new customers—is sound. Choice D about beverage purchases by afternoon customers is interesting for cross-selling analysis, but again doesn't directly test whether the pastry discount will work as intended.
The critical question is whether there's currently waste that this strategy could convert into revenue. Choice B provides exactly the information needed to evaluate this assumption.
Strategy tip: In GMAT critical reasoning questions asking you to "evaluate" an argument, look for the choice that tests the most fundamental assumption underlying the proposed plan, not just related factors.
- To assess whether the peer-inspection step is likely to lower the overall defect rate, it would be most useful to know
Answer: whether the majority of current defects could have been detected visually at the stage when the inspection will occur
When evaluating whether a proposed solution will effectively address a problem, you need to identify what conditions must be met for that solution to work. This question tests your ability to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant factors when assessing a plan's potential effectiveness.
For peer inspection to reduce defects, the fundamental requirement is that inspectors must be able to detect the defects that currently occur. Choice A directly addresses this critical assumption—if most current defects cannot be visually detected at the inspection stage, then peer inspection won't meaningfully reduce the overall defect rate, regardless of how well it's implemented.
Choice B focuses on production speed and overtime costs, which relates to implementation costs rather than effectiveness at reducing defects. Even if inspection slows production, it could still successfully reduce defects. Choice C addresses worker morale concerns, which might affect implementation but doesn't determine whether the inspection process can actually catch defects. Choice D provides information about what other companies did after implementing peer inspection, but their subsequent investments don't tell us whether peer inspection itself was effective at reducing defects.
The key trap here is confusing implementation challenges or side effects with core effectiveness. Choices B, C, and D all present factors that might matter for the overall success of the program, but they don't address the fundamental question of whether peer inspection can actually detect and prevent defects.
Remember: when evaluating whether a proposed solution will work, first identify what basic conditions must be true for the solution's mechanism to function as intended.
- Which of the following would most help evaluate whether the proposed toll program will effectively reduce congestion during rush hour?
Answer: Whether a substantial proportion of current rush-hour drivers have flexible schedules that allow them to travel outside peak periods
When you encounter a "help evaluate" question, you're looking for information that would directly test whether the proposed solution will work as intended. The key is identifying what assumptions the plan relies on for success.
The variable toll plan assumes that higher prices during rush hour will motivate drivers to shift their travel times. For this to work, drivers must actually have the ability to change when they travel. Choice A directly tests this critical assumption by asking whether rush-hour drivers have flexible schedules. If most drivers must travel during peak hours for work or other fixed commitments, then even dramatically higher tolls won't reduce congestion because people simply can't adjust their travel times.
Choice B addresses technical implementation but doesn't evaluate effectiveness. Even if the system works perfectly from a technological standpoint, it won't reduce congestion if drivers can't or won't change their behavior. Choice C focuses on public support, which matters for political feasibility but not for whether the program will actually achieve its stated goal of reducing rush-hour traffic. Choice D examines what happens to the revenue, which is important for long-term transportation planning but irrelevant to whether the toll itself will decrease congestion during peak periods.
The correct answer is A because it directly tests whether the fundamental behavioral change the program depends on is even possible for the target population.
Strategy tip: On GMAT evaluation questions, always ask yourself "What does this plan assume must be true?" Then look for the answer choice that would test that core assumption most directly.
- In deciding whether the motion-sensor lighting will achieve the intended cost savings, management would most benefit from knowing
Answer: whether corridor lights are currently left on continuously even during periods of very low occupancy
When evaluating business decisions on the GMAT, you need to focus on information that directly impacts the core assumption. Here, the hotel assumes motion-sensor lighting will reduce operating expenses by turning lights on only when needed.
Choice A is correct because it directly tests this assumption. If corridor lights are currently left on continuously even during low occupancy periods, then motion sensors would indeed reduce electricity usage and costs by turning lights off when corridors are empty. This information is essential to determine whether the cost savings will actually materialize.
Choice B is wrong because guest preferences about brightness levels don't affect whether motion sensors will reduce operating costs. The question is about expense reduction, not lighting quality or guest satisfaction.
Choice C is incorrect because building code requirements for emergency lighting would be a constraint the hotel must work within regardless of the motion-sensor decision. While important for implementation, this doesn't help determine if cost savings will occur.
Choice D is wrong because customer reviews about environmental initiatives relate to marketing benefits, not operating expense reduction. Favorable reviews might provide other value, but they don't indicate whether electricity costs actually decreased.
Remember that GMAT critical reasoning questions about business decisions often hinge on unstated assumptions. Always ask yourself: "What must be true for this plan to work as intended?" The correct answer typically provides information that either supports or challenges that underlying assumption. In cost-reduction scenarios, focus on data that directly measures the current situation against the proposed change.
- In assessing the likelihood that the network's plan will succeed, which of the following would be most informative?
Answer: What proportion of viewers who have abandoned the network cite excessive commercials as their primary reason
When evaluating business plans on the GMAT, you need to identify what information would best help assess whether the proposed strategy will achieve its intended goal. The network's goal is to regain lost viewers by reducing commercial breaks, based on the assumption that excessive commercials drove viewers away.
Choice A is correct because it directly tests the network's core assumption. If a high proportion of former viewers cite excessive commercials as their primary reason for leaving, this supports the plan's logic. If most viewers left for other reasons (poor show quality, better content elsewhere, etc.), then reducing commercials won't address the real problem and the plan will likely fail.
Choice B focuses on revenue loss, which is important for overall business viability but doesn't help assess whether the plan will succeed in attracting viewers. You could lose significant ad revenue and still regain viewers, or lose little revenue while failing to attract audiences.
Choice C about streaming subscription fees is too indirect and speculative. Even if streaming prices increase, this doesn't guarantee viewers will return to traditional TV, and it doesn't validate whether fewer commercials specifically will draw them back.
Choice D about competing cable channels misses the point. The network is primarily competing with ad-free streaming services, not other traditional channels with commercials.
Strategy tip: In plan evaluation questions, always look for the answer choice that most directly tests the key assumption underlying the proposed strategy. Ask yourself: "What would I need to know to determine if this plan's logic is sound?"
- Which of the following would be most useful to know in evaluating the likelihood that the city council's plan will achieve its goal?
Answer: Whether most pedestrian–vehicle collisions on the targeted streets occur at points where vehicles would in fact have to cross the proposed speed bumps
When evaluating whether a proposed solution will achieve its intended goal, you need to identify potential gaps between the solution's mechanism and the problem it's meant to solve. Here, the city council assumes that slowing traffic with speed bumps will reduce pedestrian collisions.
The correct answer is A because it addresses a crucial gap in this logic. Speed bumps only slow traffic at specific points on the street. If most pedestrian-vehicle collisions happen away from where the speed bumps would be installed—say, at intersections, crosswalks, or mid-block areas without bumps—then the speed reduction at bump locations wouldn't prevent accidents. This information directly determines whether the plan's mechanism (slowing traffic with bumps) will actually address the problem (collisions at collision-prone locations).
Answer B is irrelevant to whether the plan will work—it only affects implementation logistics, not effectiveness. Answer C focuses on driver opinions, but public support doesn't determine whether speed bumps will actually reduce accidents. Answer D introduces an additional variable (increased enforcement) that's separate from evaluating the speed bump plan itself.
The key insight is that the plan assumes speed reduction anywhere on the street will help, but accidents happen at specific locations. If those locations don't coincide with where speed bumps would be placed, the entire premise fails.
Strategy tip: In GMAT "evaluate the plan" questions, look for assumptions about how the proposed mechanism connects to the desired outcome. The right answer usually tests whether that connection actually exists in practice.
