- The scholar's argument proceeds by
Answer: citing two related reasons to support a recommendation about admissible evidence
When you encounter argument structure questions on the GMAT, focus on identifying what the author actually does in their reasoning rather than evaluating whether their argument is good or bad.
The legal scholar's argument follows a clear pattern: they make a recommendation ("Courts should not allow testimony obtained through hypnosis") and then provide two supporting reasons. First, they argue that "memories recovered under hypnosis are often inaccurate." Second, they claim that "individuals under hypnosis are highly suggestible, which increases the risk of false testimony." Both reasons work together to support the same conclusion about admissible evidence in courts.
Choice C correctly identifies this structure—the scholar cites two related reasons (inaccuracy and suggestibility) to support a recommendation about what evidence courts should admit.
Choice A is wrong because the scholar never questions anyone's motives; they focus purely on the problems with hypnotic testimony itself. Choice B fails because the argument doesn't mention constitutional issues or due process violations—it's about practical concerns with evidence quality. Choice D is incorrect because no statistical data appears in the passage, and the scholar isn't refuting a theory about memory retrieval but rather arguing against a legal practice.
For argument structure questions, ignore whether you agree with the reasoning and instead map out exactly what logical moves the author makes. Look for patterns like: recommendation + supporting reasons, hypothesis + evidence, or problem + proposed solution. This mechanical approach will help you avoid getting distracted by the content and focus on the actual argumentative structure.
- In the historian's reasoning, the evidence concerning the broadsheets plays which one of the following roles?
Answer: It is cited as grounds for rejecting the claim that the speech originated the revolt.
Questions asking about the role of evidence test your ability to analyze logical structure in arguments. When you see "the evidence plays which role," focus on how each piece of evidence functions within the argument's reasoning.
The historian presents a clear logical structure: someone claims the king's speech sparked the revolt, but the historian disagrees. The broadsheets serve as counter-evidence because they appeared before the speech, making it chronologically impossible for the speech to have started the revolt. This evidence directly undermines the original claim, supporting the historian's alternative explanation that the speech merely expressed existing grievances.
Choice B correctly identifies this function—the broadsheets are "cited as grounds for rejecting the claim that the speech originated the revolt." The timing evidence allows the historian to refute the causal relationship others proposed.
Choice A misreads the argument entirely. The broadsheets showed "opposition to the tax," not royal propaganda, and weren't authored by the king. Choice C focuses on irrelevant details about news spreading, but the historian uses the broadsheets to establish timing for causation purposes, not to discuss communication speed. Choice D makes an unsupported generalization about media influence in the 17th century—the historian never compares the effectiveness of different communication methods.
When analyzing argument structure, always track the logical flow: what claim is being made, what evidence supports or refutes it, and how each piece of evidence specifically functions. Pay special attention to temporal relationships, as timing often determines causation in GMAT arguments.
- The psychologist's argument does which of the following?
Answer: It reinterprets experimental results by introducing a variable that may account for the observed effect.
When you encounter GMAT questions asking "the argument does which of the following," you're being tested on argument structure - specifically, how the author builds their case and what logical moves they make.
The psychologist starts with experimental data showing that gratitude list subjects became happier. However, rather than accepting this at face value, the psychologist introduces additional information: these same subjects also slept 30 minutes more per night. The psychologist then points out that increased sleep independently improves mood, suggesting this could explain the happiness results instead of (or in addition to) the gratitude exercise. This is a classic case of introducing an alternative explanation for observed results.
Choice B correctly identifies this structure - the psychologist reinterprets the experimental results by introducing sleep as a variable that may account for the happiness effect.
Choice A is wrong because the psychologist doesn't dismiss self-reported measures as unreliable; they accept the happiness reports but question their cause. Choice C misrepresents the argument - the psychologist mentions increased sleep time, not improved sleep quality with unchanged duration. Choice D is incorrect because the psychologist actually argues that happiness and sleep are related variables, not independent ones.
Strategy tip: On GMAT argument structure questions, focus on the logical moves the author makes rather than the content details. Ask yourself: "Is the author accepting results and questioning causes? Introducing alternative explanations? Challenging methodology?" This approach will help you identify the argument's framework quickly.
- In the planner's argument, the boldface statements play which of the following roles?
Answer: The first proposes a solution; the second indicates a condition that must be met for the solution to be widely implemented.
When you encounter boldface questions on the GMAT, you're analyzing the logical structure of an argument. Focus on identifying what role each boldface statement plays in the author's reasoning chain.
Let's trace the planner's logic: The downtown area needs green space (problem) → Installing rooftop gardens would add greenery without using ground space (proposed solution) → But rooftop gardens are expensive to maintain, so tax incentives may be necessary (condition for implementation).
The first boldface statement presents a solution to the stated problem of lacking green space. The second statement doesn't contradict this solution but rather identifies what would need to happen for this solution to work in practice. The word "Nevertheless" signals a shift to considering implementation challenges, not rejecting the proposal.
Choice B correctly captures this structure: the first boldface proposes a solution, and the second indicates a condition (tax incentives) that must be met for widespread adoption.
Choice A is wrong because the first statement highlights advantages (adding greenery without using ground space), not disadvantages. Choice C misidentifies the roles—neither statement is the main conclusion, and the second doesn't support the first. Choice D is completely off-base since there's no historical precedent mentioned anywhere.
Strategy tip: In boldface questions, pay attention to transition words like "Nevertheless," "However," and "Therefore." They signal the relationship between statements. Also, distinguish between solutions and conclusions—a solution addresses a problem, while a conclusion is what the author wants you to believe.
- In the teacher's argument, the boldface statements play which of the following roles?
Answer: The first cites a drawback of an asserted universal principle; the second recommends a balanced approach in light of that drawback.
When you encounter a GMAT boldface question, you're analyzing the logical structure and role of specific statements within an argument. Focus on how each boldface statement functions—does it present evidence, state a conclusion, offer a counterpoint, or propose a solution?
In this argument, the teacher begins by acknowledging that some educators believe homework always reinforces learning. The first boldface statement then presents a potential problem with this belief: "Yet excessive homework can reduce students' motivation, leading them to disengage from the material." This introduces a drawback or limitation to the universal principle that homework is always beneficial. The second boldface statement responds to this drawback by recommending a middle-ground solution: "assignments should be limited to a level that maintains enthusiasm while still providing practice."
Answer choice D correctly captures this structure. The first boldface cites a drawback (reduced motivation from excessive homework) of an asserted universal principle (homework always reinforces learning), and the second recommends a balanced approach (limited assignments) in light of that drawback.
Let's eliminate the incorrect options: A is wrong because neither statement involves statistical findings or research proposals. B mischaracterizes the relationship—the first statement doesn't support the belief about homework but rather challenges it. C incorrectly identifies the first statement as the main conclusion when it's actually presenting a counterargument to the educators' position.
On boldface questions, always map out the argument's flow first: identify premises, counterpoints, and conclusions. Then match each boldface statement to its specific logical role in that structure.
- The ethicist's method of reasoning is to
Answer: challenge a proposal by showing that its central rationale fails under closer examination
When you encounter questions about an author's method of reasoning, focus on identifying the logical structure of their argument rather than whether you agree with their conclusion.
The ethicist here uses a classic argumentative strategy: taking a proposed justification and demonstrating that it doesn't actually solve the problem it claims to address. The argument flows like this: opponents say "equal access justifies performance-enhancing drugs," but the ethicist shows this reasoning is flawed because equal access still allows genetic differences to create unfairness. By undermining the central premise that equal access eliminates unfairness, the ethicist dismantles the entire justification.
This matches choice C perfectly—the ethicist challenges the proposal (allowing performance-enhancing drugs) by showing its central rationale (equal access eliminates unfairness) fails under scrutiny.
Choice A is wrong because the ethicist doesn't compare two competing frameworks; they focus on dismantling one specific argument. Choice B mischaracterizes the ethicist's position entirely—they're arguing against the controversial practice, not supporting it. Choice D is incorrect because no analogy to academic testing appears anywhere in the passage.
The key trap here is choice A, which might seem appealing because the passage mentions "some argue" versus the ethicist's view. However, this isn't comparing two complete ethical frameworks—it's specifically attacking one argument's logic.
Remember: on method of reasoning questions, track how the author builds their case step-by-step. Look for whether they're attacking premises, drawing comparisons, or using evidence—not just what they conclude.
- The environmental report's argument proceeds by
Answer: advocating a change in practice on the basis of a comparison between resource requirements of two alternatives
When you encounter a question asking how an argument "proceeds," you're being tested on argument structure—the logical framework the author uses to make their case.
The environmental report follows a clear logical pattern: it identifies a problem (lawns need heavy watering during droughts), presents an alternative solution (native wildflower meadows), compares the resource requirements of both options (heavy watering versus no watering), and concludes that adopting the alternative will reduce water use. This is exactly what choice D describes—advocating a practice change based on comparing resource requirements between two alternatives.
Choice A is incorrect because the report doesn't predict household adoption behavior or mention any past reluctance. The argument simply advocates for the change without discussing implementation likelihood.
Choice B mischaracterizes the argument entirely. The report isn't criticizing an existing policy or claiming to address the "primary cause" of water shortages—it's proposing a solution to reduce water consumption during droughts.
Choice C is wrong because the report provides no historical data whatsoever. It makes general statements about lawn watering needs and drought frequency but cites no specific past watering statistics or conservation efforts.
The correct answer is D because the argument's foundation rests on contrasting two landscaping options and their respective water demands.
Strategy tip: For argument structure questions, map out the author's logical flow: problem identification → solution proposal → supporting reasoning → conclusion. This helps you identify the specific technique being used rather than getting distracted by the topic content.
- The economist's reasoning does which of the following?
Answer: Infers a specific unintended consequence from a pair of simultaneously observed labor-market trends.
When you encounter GMAT critical reasoning questions asking what an argument "does," you're being tested on your ability to identify the structure and method of reasoning, not whether the argument is sound.
The economist observes two simultaneous trends: unemployment falling while involuntary part-time work rising. From these observations, the economist draws a specific conclusion about what the job-creation credits are actually causing—firms are splitting full-time jobs into part-time positions rather than creating genuinely new employment. This is a classic example of inferring an unintended consequence from observed data patterns.
Answer D correctly captures this reasoning structure: the economist takes two labor market trends occurring at the same time and uses them to infer that the policy is producing an unintended effect (job conversion rather than job creation).
Answer A is wrong because the economist doesn't question data accuracy or compare official versus private figures—both statistics appear to be accepted as valid. Answer B fails because this isn't about a "long-standing" policy but a recently enacted one, and the economist isn't making future predictions about likelihood of success. Answer C is incorrect because the economist isn't making predictions about a proposal under debate—the credits are already enacted—and isn't specifically discussing adverse effects on current full-time workers.
Remember: "What does the reasoning do?" questions focus on method and structure. Look for how the author moves from premises to conclusion, not whether you agree with the argument's validity.
- In the art historian's argument, the boldface portions play which of the following roles?
Answer: The first presents a phenomenon that challenges an initial inference; the second draws a revised inference based on that phenomenon.
When tackling boldface reasoning questions, you need to identify the specific role each highlighted portion plays in the author's logical structure, not just whether you agree with the content.
Let's trace the art historian's reasoning: The passage opens with an observation about auction prices suggesting a bubble. The first boldface statement then presents a phenomenon that challenges this initial bubble inference—it explains that overpriced works failing to sell actually signals a market peak after demand has already dried up, not before. This creates a puzzle: if failed sales indicate a peak only after the fact, what does a successful record-setting sale mean? The second boldface statement resolves this puzzle by drawing a revised inference: since the painting sold successfully (rather than failing to sell), the bubble may still have room to grow.
Choice B correctly captures this logical flow: the first boldface presents a phenomenon (the timing of market signals) that challenges the initial inference about a bubble, and the second draws a revised inference based on understanding that phenomenon.
Choice A is wrong because the first boldface isn't the main conclusion—it's explanatory context. Choice C mischaracterizes both statements; neither discusses buyer motivations nor presents economic data. Choice D incorrectly frames the first statement as identifying an assumption when it actually presents factual market behavior.
Strategy tip: In boldface questions, map out the logical progression step-by-step before looking at answer choices. Ask yourself: "What is each boldface doing in the argument's structure?" rather than focusing on the content alone.
- The chemist's reasoning most closely conforms to which of the following argumentative strategies?
Answer: Presenting two mutually exclusive explanations, each of which would account for an observed anomaly
When you encounter questions asking you to identify argumentative strategies, focus on the logical structure of the reasoning rather than the scientific content. Look for how the author moves from evidence to conclusion.
The chemist observes an anomaly: catalyst C increases the reaction rate (expected behavior) but also shows a 40% loss (unexpected for a true catalyst). Faced with this contradictory evidence, the chemist presents exactly two possible explanations: either C isn't a true catalyst, or something in the reaction removed C from solution. These explanations are mutually exclusive—C can't simultaneously be both a true catalyst and not a true catalyst—and together they account for the puzzling observation.
Choice A is incorrect because the chemist isn't questioning experimental methods or challenging published data—they're interpreting their own fresh results. Choice B mischaracterizes the logic; the chemist isn't rejecting a hypothesis due to absent evidence, but rather offering alternative explanations for present, contradictory evidence. Choice C is wrong because no analogy appears in the reasoning—the chemist works directly with the observed data from this specific reaction.
Choice D correctly identifies the argumentative structure: presenting two mutually exclusive explanations that together account for an anomaly.
Strategy tip: On GMAT verbal reasoning questions about argumentative strategies, strip away the technical content and focus purely on logical structure. Ask yourself: "What type of reasoning move is the author making?" This approach helps you avoid getting distracted by unfamiliar subject matter.
- The botanist's argument proceeds by
Answer: drawing an analogy between two environments and inferring that a characteristic important in one will be sufficient in the other
Questions asking "the argument proceeds by" test your ability to identify the logical structure and reasoning pattern used in an argument. You need to analyze how the author moves from premises to conclusion.
The botanist observes that the rare alpine flower grows only on north-facing slopes (which receive less sunlight) and concludes that planting it in shaded botanical garden plots should allow it to thrive. This reasoning draws a comparison between two different environments—alpine north-facing slopes and shaded garden plots at lower elevations—and assumes that because reduced sunlight is important for the flower's success in one environment, it will be sufficient to ensure success in the other environment.
Choice A is incorrect because the botanist doesn't identify a necessary condition and claim it's sufficient. The argument assumes shade is sufficient based on the alpine observation, but doesn't establish it as necessary. Choice C is wrong because no controlled experiment or laboratory data is mentioned—the botanist is making a predictive argument based on field observation. Choice D is incorrect because the argument involves only one species and doesn't contrast genetic traits of related species.
Choice B correctly identifies the reasoning pattern: the botanist draws an analogy between alpine slopes and garden plots, noting that both can provide shade, and infers that the characteristic important in the alpine environment (reduced sunlight) will be sufficient for success in the garden environment.
When you see "argument proceeds by" questions, map out the logical steps: identify the evidence, the conclusion, and the reasoning bridge connecting them. This helps you match the argument's structure to the correct answer choice.
- In the policy analyst's reasoning, the two boldface statements play which of the following roles?
Answer: The first recommends against a popular measure; the second offers a practical alternative supporting that recommendation.
GMAT Critical Reasoning questions about boldface statements test your ability to identify the structural role each statement plays in an argument. Focus on what each boldface portion does in the reasoning, not just what it says.
Let's trace the analyst's logic: The public wants higher gas taxes for highway repairs, but the analyst argues against this. The first boldface statement presents the analyst's main recommendation ("the legislature should reject that option") along with a reason (constitutional earmarking). The second boldface statement offers an alternative solution (reallocating existing funds) that supports rejecting the tax increase.
Choice D correctly captures this structure. The first statement recommends against the popular gas tax measure, and the second provides a practical alternative that reinforces why that recommendation makes sense.
Choice A mischaracterizes the roles. While the first mentions a legal consideration, the second doesn't provide "empirical data" or "neutralize" anything—it suggests a different approach entirely.
Choice B fails because these aren't the same conclusion restated. The first rejects one option; the second proposes a completely different solution.
Choice C incorrectly frames the relationship. The first doesn't identify a "drawback of a proposal"—it rejects the proposal itself. The second doesn't "undermine" the constitutional concern but rather works around it by suggesting an alternative.
When analyzing boldface statements, ask yourself: "What job does each statement do?" Look for whether statements conclude, support, oppose, qualify, or provide alternatives. The relationship between the statements often reveals the correct answer.
- In the executive's argument, the two boldface statements play which of the following roles?
Answer: The first is a prediction; the second provides a general principle used to support that prediction.
When you encounter boldface questions on the GMAT, you need to identify the specific role each statement plays in the argument's logical structure, not just whether you agree with the content.
Let's trace the executive's reasoning: The argument starts with a fact (4 million viewers), then the first boldface makes a prediction about future sales based on an online launch. The second boldface provides the underlying principle that justifies this prediction—that large exposure leads to customer loyalty.
Answer B correctly identifies this structure. The first boldface is indeed a prediction ("will inevitably result in strong initial sales"), and the second provides a general principle ("large initial exposure virtually ensures...") that supports why that prediction should come true.
Answer A mischaracterizes both statements. The first isn't evidence to be explained—it's a conclusion drawn from the 4 million viewers statistic. The second isn't the main conclusion but rather supporting reasoning.
Answer C is completely backwards. The executive isn't challenging the first statement but advocating for it, and the second statement supports rather than undermines the first.
Answer D confuses the roles entirely. The first statement isn't a background assumption—it's a specific prediction about this product launch. The second doesn't cite statistical data but offers a general business principle.
Strategy tip: In boldface questions, focus on function over content. Ask yourself: Is this statement making a prediction, providing evidence, offering a principle, or drawing a conclusion? The logical relationship between the statements matters more than whether the argument is actually sound.
- In the geologist's reasoning, the boldface statements play which of the following roles?
Answer: The first states a practical limitation of a system; the second draws a consequence that follows from that limitation.
Boldface questions test your ability to identify the logical role that specific statements play in an argument's structure. You need to analyze how each bolded statement functions within the overall reasoning chain.
The geologist presents a clear logical progression: The first boldface statement identifies a specific problem with the earthquake warning system—cities near epicenters won't get meaningful warnings because seismic waves travel nearly as fast as the alert signals themselves. This establishes a practical constraint on how the system works. The second boldface statement then logically follows from this limitation, concluding that the system would therefore help rural areas more than dense urban centers.
Answer choice B correctly captures this relationship: the first statement identifies a practical limitation (the speed constraint), and the second draws a logical consequence from that limitation (unequal distribution of benefits).
Choice A is wrong because neither statement provides historical evidence, nor does the second refute a prediction—it draws a conclusion about future outcomes. Choice C mischaracterizes both statements; the first isn't a cost-benefit analysis but a technical constraint, and the second doesn't recommend an alternative investment. Choice D incorrectly identifies the first statement as the main conclusion when it's actually supporting evidence, and the second doesn't propose any testing method.
For boldface questions, always map the logical flow first: identify whether each statement is a premise, conclusion, evidence, counterargument, or limitation. Then match that structural role to the answer choices, focusing on the precise relationship between the two statements.
- In the advisor's argument, the boldface portions play which of the following roles?
Answer: The first advances a recommendation; the second adds a qualification intended to mitigate the risk associated with that recommendation.
When you encounter boldface questions on the GMAT, you're analyzing the structural role each highlighted statement plays in the argument's logic. Focus on how each boldface portion functions—whether it's a conclusion, premise, objection, qualification, or background information.
Let's trace the advisor's reasoning: The passage begins with context about tech sector volatility, then the first boldface statement recommends increasing holdings in startup tech firms despite this risk. The second boldface statement doesn't contradict this recommendation but rather adds a protective measure—stop-loss orders—to manage the acknowledged risk.
Choice C correctly identifies this structure: the first boldface advances a recommendation (invest more in tech startups), and the second adds a qualification that mitigates risk (impose stop-loss orders). The advisor isn't backing down from the recommendation but making it more prudent.
Choice A is wrong because the first boldface isn't identifying an objection—it's making the actual recommendation despite the mentioned volatility. Choice B mischaracterizes both parts: the first isn't mere background (it's the main recommendation), and the second isn't the principal conclusion (it's a supplementary protective measure). Choice D is completely off-base since neither boldface portion discusses historical evidence or contradictory data.
Strategy tip: In boldface questions, map out the argument's flow before looking at answer choices. Ask yourself: "What is this statement's job in the argument?" The correct answer will accurately describe each statement's structural function, not just its content.
- In the critic's argument, the boldface portions play which of the following roles?
Answer: The first presents a consideration weighing against the proposal; the second states the overall conclusion supported by that consideration.
When you encounter boldface questions on the GMAT, your task is to identify the specific role each highlighted portion plays in the argument's structure. Think of yourself as analyzing the argument's blueprint rather than evaluating whether the reasoning is sound.
Let's trace through the critic's argument step by step. The critic begins by acknowledging a potential benefit: increased attendance. Then the first boldface statement introduces resident opposition due to traffic concerns - this is clearly a consideration that weighs against the proposal. The second boldface statement tells us what the critic believes should happen based on this opposition: reject the proposal. This is the critic's main conclusion, directly supported by the traffic concern mentioned in the first boldface.
Answer choice C correctly captures this structure: the first boldface presents a consideration against the proposal, and the second states the conclusion that this consideration supports.
Let's examine why the other choices miss the mark. Choice A incorrectly suggests the critic refutes the traffic concern, but the critic actually uses it to support rejection. Choice B mischaracterizes the first boldface as describing a benefit when it actually describes opposition and problems. Choice D wrongly identifies the first boldface as the main point, when it's actually supporting evidence for the conclusion stated in the second boldface.
Strategy tip: In boldface questions, always identify the conclusion first, then trace how each boldface portion relates to that conclusion. Ask yourself: Is this portion supporting, opposing, or qualifying the main argument?
- The researcher's argument proceeds by
Answer: drawing a causal conclusion from a comparison between the amount collected and the number of violations recorded
When you encounter questions asking how an argument "proceeds," you're analyzing the logical structure and reasoning method the author uses to reach their conclusion.
The researcher observes two facts: parking fines increased, yet revenue stayed the same despite fewer tickets being issued. From these observations, the researcher concludes that drivers are now more willing to pay higher fines rather than follow parking rules. This reasoning compares numerical data (revenue amounts vs. number of violations) to draw a causal explanation for the observed pattern.
Choice D correctly identifies this structure—the argument draws a causal conclusion by comparing the amount collected with the number of violations recorded. The researcher takes the stable revenue despite fewer tickets as evidence that driver behavior has changed in a specific way.
Choice A is wrong because the researcher doesn't challenge an alternative explanation or reference established traffic data—they simply propose their own explanation for the observed phenomenon. Choice B incorrectly suggests the argument mentions administrative costs, which never appear in the passage. The researcher focuses solely on driver behavior, not enforcement expenses. Choice C mischaracterizes the argument entirely—the researcher isn't arguing that a policy will succeed despite contrary evidence, but rather explaining why revenue patterns occurred after the policy was implemented.
Remember that "proceeds by" questions test your ability to identify argumentative structure, not content. Focus on how the author builds their case: Do they compare data? Challenge assumptions? Draw causal links? Recognizing these patterns will help you quickly identify the logical framework being used.
- The meteorologist's reasoning does which of the following?
Answer: It reconciles an apparent counterexample to a generalization by identifying an unusual intervening factor.
When analyzing reasoning patterns in GMAT verbal questions, look for how the author handles apparent contradictions or exceptions to established rules.
The meteorologist presents a classic logical structure: a general rule (hurricanes weaken in cooler water) seems contradicted by specific evidence (Hurricane Z strengthened in cooler water). Rather than abandoning the rule, the meteorologist explains why this case doesn't actually contradict it—the underwater volcanic eruption created unusual conditions that maintained the water's warmth despite appearances.
Answer choice B correctly captures this reasoning pattern. The meteorologist takes what appears to be a counterexample (Hurricane Z) and shows it's not really contradictory by identifying a special intervening factor (volcanic heating) that explains the apparent exception while preserving the general rule.
Choice A is wrong because the meteorologist doesn't revise the rule—the original principle about hurricanes and cool water remains unchanged. Choice C misses the mark because the argument doesn't limit the model's predictive power or discuss rarity of conditions; it simply explains one specific case. Choice D is incorrect because the meteorologist never questions the reliability of the data or measurement technology—the facts about Hurricane Z's behavior are accepted as accurate.
The key strategy here is recognizing that explanations preserving general rules while accounting for apparent exceptions follow this "reconciliation" pattern. Watch for arguments where authors don't abandon principles but instead identify special circumstances that explain why seeming contradictions aren't true violations of the rule.
- The nutritionist's argument employs which method of reasoning?
Answer: It identifies a mismatch between the stated purpose of a classification scheme and the basis on which that scheme operates.
When you encounter a "method of reasoning" question, you need to identify the logical structure of the argument rather than evaluate whether the conclusion is correct.
The nutritionist presents a clear logical disconnect: the app claims to identify "healthy" meals but uses only calorie count as its criterion. The argument points out that this single-factor approach fails to capture what "healthy" actually means, since low-calorie meals can lack essential nutrients. This creates a gap between what the app purports to do (identify healthy meals) and how it actually operates (counting only calories).
Choice B correctly identifies this reasoning pattern—the nutritionist shows a mismatch between the classification scheme's stated purpose and its actual basis of operation.
Choice A is incorrect because the nutritionist isn't arguing that the calorie-based definition is too narrow; rather, they're showing it's fundamentally misaligned with the goal of identifying healthy food. Choice C misrepresents the argument entirely—the nutritionist makes no assumptions about user attitudes toward calorie counts. Choice D goes too far; the nutritionist never suggests abandoning the app or recommends personal coaching as an alternative.
The key strategy here is to focus on the argument's structure, not its content. Ask yourself: "What logical move is the author making?" Look for patterns like identifying contradictions, showing mismatches between goals and methods, or revealing flawed assumptions. Don't get distracted by whether you agree with the conclusion—focus purely on how the reasoning unfolds.
- In the engineer's reasoning, the boldface statements play which of the following roles?
Answer: The first provides a reason supporting one course of action; the second presents a conditional recommendation that may supersede that course of action.
Boldface questions test your ability to identify the logical function of specific statements within an argument. You need to trace how each highlighted statement contributes to the overall reasoning structure.
Let's analyze the engineer's logic: The engineer first acknowledges that thicker pipes cost more to install, then argues they're necessary due to increasing pressure complaints. Finally, the engineer introduces a conditional scenario where budget constraints might make pumps a better alternative than pipes.
The first boldface statement "thicker pipes are essential, because low-pressure complaints have increased sharply" provides a reason supporting the installation of thicker pipes. The second boldface statement "if budgets remain tight, installing additional pumps rather than thicker pipes may be preferable" presents a conditional recommendation that could override the initial pipe recommendation under certain circumstances.
Answer choice A incorrectly suggests the first statement describes a problem, when it actually advocates for a solution. Answer choice B mischaracterizes the relationship—the second statement doesn't present a drawback of thicker pipes, but rather proposes an alternative approach. Answer choice D is wrong because neither statement describes "uncontested facts" or provides "background information"—both are evaluative claims about what should be done.
Answer choice C correctly captures this logical progression: the first statement supports one course of action (thicker pipes), while the second offers a conditional recommendation (pumps) that may supersede that initial recommendation.
Strategy tip: In boldface questions, focus on the logical function each statement serves—is it evidence, conclusion, counterargument, or conditional recommendation? The content matters less than the role each statement plays in the argument's structure.
