Strengthen/Weaken Critical Reasoning - GMAT Verbal
Card 1 of 160
Doctor: Some well-known figures in the medical community have begun to endorse large doses of vitamin supplements – especially folic acid – as part of treatment for diseases like ulcerative colitis. These doctors and television personalities claim that the vitamins can lessen the side effects of ulcerative colitis and lead to an overall improvement in the health of patients with ulcerative colitis. However, there is no evidence that the pure forms of vitamins found in supplements have any greater effect than those found in food. Patients with ulcerative colitis should instead spend their money on buying healthy foods like fruits and vegetables in order to get their vitamins.
Which of the following would most weaken the doctor’s argument?
Doctor: Some well-known figures in the medical community have begun to endorse large doses of vitamin supplements – especially folic acid – as part of treatment for diseases like ulcerative colitis. These doctors and television personalities claim that the vitamins can lessen the side effects of ulcerative colitis and lead to an overall improvement in the health of patients with ulcerative colitis. However, there is no evidence that the pure forms of vitamins found in supplements have any greater effect than those found in food. Patients with ulcerative colitis should instead spend their money on buying healthy foods like fruits and vegetables in order to get their vitamins.
Which of the following would most weaken the doctor’s argument?
Tap to reveal answer
For any strengthen or weaken question, your job is to find the gap in the logic and either exploit it (in the case of a weaken question) or shore it up (in the case of a strengthen question). Here you are told that some people in the medical community encourage patients to take large doses of vitamin supplements to treat ulcerative colitis. The doctor making this argument claims that the health benefits are no better than the health benefits of getting vitamins through food, so patients with ulcerative colitis should spend their money on food instead of supplements.
The gap here is that ulcerative colitis patients need to eat the food in order to get the vitamins. What if they can’t as a side effect of their disease or can’t afford to buy the foods necessary? Anything that would prevent a patient with ulcerative colitis from getting the nutrients they need from food would exploit this fact.
Choice "Vitamins from supplements are less healthy because they often lack the micronutrients found in food that aid absorption." actually strengthens the doctors argument rather than weakening it. If the supplements were missing important micrnutrients that food has, that would lend support to the idea that it’s better to just get your vitamins through food.
Choice "Vitamins do not necessarily cause harm when ingested following the instructions on the label." neither strengthens nor weakens the argument given. Even if vitamin supplements aren’t harmful, that doesn’t support whether they are better or worse than vitamins ingested through food.
Choice "Many people with ulcerative colitis cannot easily digest vitamin-rich foods due to damage to their digestive system and find it easier to get vitamins from supplements." is correct. If people with ulcerative colitis can’t digest vitamin-rich foods, then they can’t get the same benefit from the food as other people do. Therefore, the doctor’s argument breaks down - if vitamin rich foods and vitamin supplements have the same efficacy but a patient can take vitamins but not foods, then the supplements are more effective in that situation.
Choice "The doctor evaluated the efficacy of different vitamins as part of a government-sponsored panel." simply establishes the doctor as an expert on vitamin research, which does not weaken his argument.
Choice "Individuals with severe ulcerative colitis are often encouraged to consume fruit and vegetable juices alongside their supplements." simply gives additional information about ulcerative colitis treatment unrelated to the debate between eating food and taking vitamin supplements.
The correct answer is "Many people with ulcerative colitis cannot easily digest vitamin-rich foods due to damage to their digestive system and find it easier to get vitamins from supplements.".
For any strengthen or weaken question, your job is to find the gap in the logic and either exploit it (in the case of a weaken question) or shore it up (in the case of a strengthen question). Here you are told that some people in the medical community encourage patients to take large doses of vitamin supplements to treat ulcerative colitis. The doctor making this argument claims that the health benefits are no better than the health benefits of getting vitamins through food, so patients with ulcerative colitis should spend their money on food instead of supplements.
The gap here is that ulcerative colitis patients need to eat the food in order to get the vitamins. What if they can’t as a side effect of their disease or can’t afford to buy the foods necessary? Anything that would prevent a patient with ulcerative colitis from getting the nutrients they need from food would exploit this fact.
Choice "Vitamins from supplements are less healthy because they often lack the micronutrients found in food that aid absorption." actually strengthens the doctors argument rather than weakening it. If the supplements were missing important micrnutrients that food has, that would lend support to the idea that it’s better to just get your vitamins through food.
Choice "Vitamins do not necessarily cause harm when ingested following the instructions on the label." neither strengthens nor weakens the argument given. Even if vitamin supplements aren’t harmful, that doesn’t support whether they are better or worse than vitamins ingested through food.
Choice "Many people with ulcerative colitis cannot easily digest vitamin-rich foods due to damage to their digestive system and find it easier to get vitamins from supplements." is correct. If people with ulcerative colitis can’t digest vitamin-rich foods, then they can’t get the same benefit from the food as other people do. Therefore, the doctor’s argument breaks down - if vitamin rich foods and vitamin supplements have the same efficacy but a patient can take vitamins but not foods, then the supplements are more effective in that situation.
Choice "The doctor evaluated the efficacy of different vitamins as part of a government-sponsored panel." simply establishes the doctor as an expert on vitamin research, which does not weaken his argument.
Choice "Individuals with severe ulcerative colitis are often encouraged to consume fruit and vegetable juices alongside their supplements." simply gives additional information about ulcerative colitis treatment unrelated to the debate between eating food and taking vitamin supplements.
The correct answer is "Many people with ulcerative colitis cannot easily digest vitamin-rich foods due to damage to their digestive system and find it easier to get vitamins from supplements.".
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
Accountant: This company simply cannot afford to hire a new salesperson. With salespeople we not only incur the salary and healthcare costs, but also the costs of a new computer, a business cell phone plan, and mileage reimbursement for driving to sales appointments. This new salesperson could raise our monthly expenses by a full 10%.
Which of the following, if true, most undermines the accountant’s argument?
Accountant: This company simply cannot afford to hire a new salesperson. With salespeople we not only incur the salary and healthcare costs, but also the costs of a new computer, a business cell phone plan, and mileage reimbursement for driving to sales appointments. This new salesperson could raise our monthly expenses by a full 10%.
Which of the following, if true, most undermines the accountant’s argument?
Tap to reveal answer
In this Weaken question, the accountant argues that "we cannot afford to hire a new salesperson," and then lists as premises the various costs that would add up to a 10% cost increase for the company. What is the gap in logic? Costs are only one part of the profit equation: there's also revenue. And the argument doesn't talk at all about the revenue that this new salesperson could bring in. You should seize on that gap and scan the argument for reasons that revenues would increase more than the costs would.
Choice "Because of the demand for the company’s products, a new salesperson is likely to account for several times as much revenue as the cost of employing her." offers exactly that: if a new salesperson would bring in much more than it costs to employ her, the conclusion crumbles. "Because of the demand for the company’s products, a new salesperson is likely to account for several times as much revenue as the cost of employing her." is correct.
Among the other choices:
"The cost of a computer is a one-time cost and would therefore not affect the company’s recurring monthly expenses." and "Many sales appointments can be conducted via free video conferencing software, thereby reducing the expenses related to mileage reimbursement." each only address one of the many costs of employing the new salesperson, so you're still stuck with the negative premise that monthly costs will be up by 10%. Remember: you cannot argue with the premises, only with the validity of the conclusion.
"The company’s closest competitor employs nearly twice as many salespeople." misses the scope of the argument, which is only about whether the company can afford this new salesperson. Whether or not other companies can afford more employees doesn't factor in to this particular analysis of one company's financial situation.
And "The company will not be able to reduce its existing expenses by enough to counterbalance the costs of a new salesperson." actually strengthens the argument, if anything, demonstrating that the 10% incremental cost is unlikely to be mitigated by other savings.
In this Weaken question, the accountant argues that "we cannot afford to hire a new salesperson," and then lists as premises the various costs that would add up to a 10% cost increase for the company. What is the gap in logic? Costs are only one part of the profit equation: there's also revenue. And the argument doesn't talk at all about the revenue that this new salesperson could bring in. You should seize on that gap and scan the argument for reasons that revenues would increase more than the costs would.
Choice "Because of the demand for the company’s products, a new salesperson is likely to account for several times as much revenue as the cost of employing her." offers exactly that: if a new salesperson would bring in much more than it costs to employ her, the conclusion crumbles. "Because of the demand for the company’s products, a new salesperson is likely to account for several times as much revenue as the cost of employing her." is correct.
Among the other choices:
"The cost of a computer is a one-time cost and would therefore not affect the company’s recurring monthly expenses." and "Many sales appointments can be conducted via free video conferencing software, thereby reducing the expenses related to mileage reimbursement." each only address one of the many costs of employing the new salesperson, so you're still stuck with the negative premise that monthly costs will be up by 10%. Remember: you cannot argue with the premises, only with the validity of the conclusion.
"The company’s closest competitor employs nearly twice as many salespeople." misses the scope of the argument, which is only about whether the company can afford this new salesperson. Whether or not other companies can afford more employees doesn't factor in to this particular analysis of one company's financial situation.
And "The company will not be able to reduce its existing expenses by enough to counterbalance the costs of a new salesperson." actually strengthens the argument, if anything, demonstrating that the 10% incremental cost is unlikely to be mitigated by other savings.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
The Metropolitan Cooking Academy surveyed prospective students and found that students wanted a curriculum that focused on today's healthy dining trends. In order to reverse the trend of declining interest in the school's programs, administrators propose a series of new courses focused on cooking exotic species of fish, alternative grains such as quinoa, and organically produced vegetables.
Which of the following, if true, supplies the best reason to suspect that the proposed new courses will increase interest in the Metropolitan Cooking Academy?
The Metropolitan Cooking Academy surveyed prospective students and found that students wanted a curriculum that focused on today's healthy dining trends. In order to reverse the trend of declining interest in the school's programs, administrators propose a series of new courses focused on cooking exotic species of fish, alternative grains such as quinoa, and organically produced vegetables.
Which of the following, if true, supplies the best reason to suspect that the proposed new courses will increase interest in the Metropolitan Cooking Academy?
Tap to reveal answer
Since the M.C.A. needs to appear to offer more "healthy" information in its cooking classes, the new programs should address this concern. Since we know that the courses offer classes on fish, grains, and organic vegetables, the correct answer will link these ingredients with health -- as does answer choice "Many advocates of healthy dining stress the importance of including fish, grains, and organically produced vegetables in one's diet.", the correct answer. Answer choice "Cooking fish, grains, and vegetables relies on the same culinary fundamentals as does the preparation of other ingredients." suggests that these classes may be effective for teaching other concepts, but does not speak to the requirement that they appear "healthy." Answer choice "In the food and beverage industry, many employers no longer have time to train apprentices and therefore demand basic culinary skills from their new hires." is irrelevant but does make the M.C.A.'s struggles even more surprising. Answer choice "Local producers in the area near the Metropolitan Cooking Academy are excellent sources of exotic fish and organic vegetables." enables the plan much as "Cooking fish, grains, and vegetables relies on the same culinary fundamentals as does the preparation of other ingredients." does but does not suggest it will succeed in attracting students. Answer choice "Many other cooking schools have found a decline in the level of interest in their programs." offers no helpful information.
Since the M.C.A. needs to appear to offer more "healthy" information in its cooking classes, the new programs should address this concern. Since we know that the courses offer classes on fish, grains, and organic vegetables, the correct answer will link these ingredients with health -- as does answer choice "Many advocates of healthy dining stress the importance of including fish, grains, and organically produced vegetables in one's diet.", the correct answer. Answer choice "Cooking fish, grains, and vegetables relies on the same culinary fundamentals as does the preparation of other ingredients." suggests that these classes may be effective for teaching other concepts, but does not speak to the requirement that they appear "healthy." Answer choice "In the food and beverage industry, many employers no longer have time to train apprentices and therefore demand basic culinary skills from their new hires." is irrelevant but does make the M.C.A.'s struggles even more surprising. Answer choice "Local producers in the area near the Metropolitan Cooking Academy are excellent sources of exotic fish and organic vegetables." enables the plan much as "Cooking fish, grains, and vegetables relies on the same culinary fundamentals as does the preparation of other ingredients." does but does not suggest it will succeed in attracting students. Answer choice "Many other cooking schools have found a decline in the level of interest in their programs." offers no helpful information.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
Radar detectors are devices that sense the nearby use of a radar gun, and, in doing so, alert drivers to the presence of police officers who might catch drivers for speeding. But evidence shows that drivers who have radar detectors in their cars are actually 10% more likely to receive speeding tickets than those who do not have radar detectors. Drivers should therefore save the money they would spend on radar detectors and simply pay the tickets they’re going to receive whether they use a radar detector or not.
Which of the following, if true, would cast the most doubt on the argument above?
Radar detectors are devices that sense the nearby use of a radar gun, and, in doing so, alert drivers to the presence of police officers who might catch drivers for speeding. But evidence shows that drivers who have radar detectors in their cars are actually 10% more likely to receive speeding tickets than those who do not have radar detectors. Drivers should therefore save the money they would spend on radar detectors and simply pay the tickets they’re going to receive whether they use a radar detector or not.
Which of the following, if true, would cast the most doubt on the argument above?
Tap to reveal answer
In this prompt, the conclusion can be tricky to properly identify because it has two parts to it: “save the money they would spend on radar detectors” and “simply pay the tickets.” The conclusion is essentially saying “radar detectors don’t help drivers avoid tickets,” based on the statistic that radar detector owners get 10% more tickets than those who don’t. But answer choice "Only the drivers most likely to receive speeding tickets purchase and use radar detectors." suggests something else: what if those drivers were actually “supposed to” get twice or three times as many tickets? 10% more would then be a decrease from what you would expect. If only the drivers who are the most likely to get tickets use radar detectors, then it stands to reason that radar detectors do work, even if not all the time. Answer choice "Only the drivers most likely to receive speeding tickets purchase and use radar detectors." is correct.
In this prompt, the conclusion can be tricky to properly identify because it has two parts to it: “save the money they would spend on radar detectors” and “simply pay the tickets.” The conclusion is essentially saying “radar detectors don’t help drivers avoid tickets,” based on the statistic that radar detector owners get 10% more tickets than those who don’t. But answer choice "Only the drivers most likely to receive speeding tickets purchase and use radar detectors." suggests something else: what if those drivers were actually “supposed to” get twice or three times as many tickets? 10% more would then be a decrease from what you would expect. If only the drivers who are the most likely to get tickets use radar detectors, then it stands to reason that radar detectors do work, even if not all the time. Answer choice "Only the drivers most likely to receive speeding tickets purchase and use radar detectors." is correct.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
Between 2000 and 2010 the rabbit population along the coast of Nova Scotia declined dramatically. Wildlife biologists studying the decline could find no signs of disease or undernourishment, so it is likely that the decline was caused by increased predation. Coyotes prefer to hunt larger mammals such as deer and elk, but it is well known that the deer population in Nova Scotia declined substantially in that period because of chronic wasting disease, a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy affecting the herd. Therefore, it is likely that coyotes were the cause of the dramatic decline in the rabbit population.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument above?
Between 2000 and 2010 the rabbit population along the coast of Nova Scotia declined dramatically. Wildlife biologists studying the decline could find no signs of disease or undernourishment, so it is likely that the decline was caused by increased predation. Coyotes prefer to hunt larger mammals such as deer and elk, but it is well known that the deer population in Nova Scotia declined substantially in that period because of chronic wasting disease, a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy affecting the herd. Therefore, it is likely that coyotes were the cause of the dramatic decline in the rabbit population.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument above?
Tap to reveal answer
In this argument, it is concluded that predation by coyotes was the cause of the rabbit decline in Nova Scotia between 2000 and 2010. However, the evidence for this conclusion is quite weak. While disease and undernourishment are eliminated as causes of the decline, it is entirely possible that the decline was caused by a different predator. While deer, the preferred prey for coyotes, did decline in this period, this does not prove that coyotes were responsible for the rabbit decline. Therefore, the correct answer should be something that gives additional evidence supporting coyote predation as the cause of the decline. For "Despite a substantial decline in the deer population between 2000 and 2010, there were still enough deer to support the coyote population in the region.", if this were true, then it would suggest that coyotes were NOT responsible for the rabbit decline as they would still be able to feed off the deer, their preferred prey. For "It is difficult for most wildlife biologists to properly assess whether the decline of an animal population is caused by disease or undernourishment.", this answer choice addresses the possibility that wildlife biologists might have missed some cause relating to disease or malnourishment. However, if this is true and the decline was indeed caused by one of these things, that would weaken not strengthen the conclusion.
For "Between 2000 and 2010, the rabbit population on several islands off the coast that are inaccessible to coyotes did not decline.", this gives additional evidence supporting the conclusion. If there was a place that coyotes were not present over that period and in that place the rabbit population did not decline, this helps build the case that indeed coyotes were the cause. Remember: the given argument provides no evidence that the cause was coyote predation; the only evidence is "it wasn't one of these two things that aren't coyote predation." So any evidence that ties coyote presence closer to rabbit decline is helpful. For "Coyotes are known to eat mice and other vermin, ground birds, insects, and even fish.", whatever else coyotes might eat is not relevant, as you don’t know what happened to those populations and how that would affect coyote predation of rabbits. For "Since 2010, the rabbit population has recovered well while the deer population has declined even further." whatever happened since 2010 is not important, as this argument is only concerned with explaining a decline during the particular period from 2000 to 2010. The correct answer is "Between 2000 and 2010, the rabbit population on several islands off the coast that are inaccessible to coyotes did not decline.".
In this argument, it is concluded that predation by coyotes was the cause of the rabbit decline in Nova Scotia between 2000 and 2010. However, the evidence for this conclusion is quite weak. While disease and undernourishment are eliminated as causes of the decline, it is entirely possible that the decline was caused by a different predator. While deer, the preferred prey for coyotes, did decline in this period, this does not prove that coyotes were responsible for the rabbit decline. Therefore, the correct answer should be something that gives additional evidence supporting coyote predation as the cause of the decline. For "Despite a substantial decline in the deer population between 2000 and 2010, there were still enough deer to support the coyote population in the region.", if this were true, then it would suggest that coyotes were NOT responsible for the rabbit decline as they would still be able to feed off the deer, their preferred prey. For "It is difficult for most wildlife biologists to properly assess whether the decline of an animal population is caused by disease or undernourishment.", this answer choice addresses the possibility that wildlife biologists might have missed some cause relating to disease or malnourishment. However, if this is true and the decline was indeed caused by one of these things, that would weaken not strengthen the conclusion.
For "Between 2000 and 2010, the rabbit population on several islands off the coast that are inaccessible to coyotes did not decline.", this gives additional evidence supporting the conclusion. If there was a place that coyotes were not present over that period and in that place the rabbit population did not decline, this helps build the case that indeed coyotes were the cause. Remember: the given argument provides no evidence that the cause was coyote predation; the only evidence is "it wasn't one of these two things that aren't coyote predation." So any evidence that ties coyote presence closer to rabbit decline is helpful. For "Coyotes are known to eat mice and other vermin, ground birds, insects, and even fish.", whatever else coyotes might eat is not relevant, as you don’t know what happened to those populations and how that would affect coyote predation of rabbits. For "Since 2010, the rabbit population has recovered well while the deer population has declined even further." whatever happened since 2010 is not important, as this argument is only concerned with explaining a decline during the particular period from 2000 to 2010. The correct answer is "Between 2000 and 2010, the rabbit population on several islands off the coast that are inaccessible to coyotes did not decline.".
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
It is often difficult to differentiate between different enantiomers, molecules with the same chemical formula that are mirror images of one another, with traditional tests. Since enantiomers of certain types of drugs can cause major health problems, some drug manufacturers have created processes that ensure that only the correct form of the drug is produced in order to avoid exposing consumers to harmful enantiomers. However, while such processes do prevent harmful enantiomers from being created during the drug creation process, these processes do not prevent harm from some drug enantiomers since .
Which of the following most logically completes the argument?
It is often difficult to differentiate between different enantiomers, molecules with the same chemical formula that are mirror images of one another, with traditional tests. Since enantiomers of certain types of drugs can cause major health problems, some drug manufacturers have created processes that ensure that only the correct form of the drug is produced in order to avoid exposing consumers to harmful enantiomers. However, while such processes do prevent harmful enantiomers from being created during the drug creation process, these processes do not prevent harm from some drug enantiomers since .
Which of the following most logically completes the argument?
Tap to reveal answer
Whenever you are asked for an answer that "most logically completes" an argument, you can determine what type of question you're dealing with by looking immediately before the blank that the answer will fill in. Here that blank is preceded by "since," so you're looking for a reason, and before that it's "these processes do not prevent harm from some drug enantiomers." So you're looking to provide a reason that these processes don't prevent harm - you're looking to strengthen that idea.
In any strengthen/weaken problem it is extremely helpful to notice the gap in logic between the premises and conclusion, and here the "extra" information just before the conclusion gives you great insight into that. Notice the modifier "during the drug creation process" - that gives a good deal of specificity as to where the prevention of harm takes place. It limits the prevention of enantiomers to that narrow scope "during the drug creation process," leaving enantiomers to emerge during any other time period (during transport of the drugs, the drugs' interaction with their containers, when taken in combination with other drugs or foods, etc.). If you notice that, you can scan the answer choices looking for some other timeframe when these enantiomers emerge.
Choice "the metabolism of some drugs within the body can create harmful enantiomers regardless of whether the drug itself contains those enantiomers." gives you exactly such a situation where this could happen. If the metabolism of the drugs leads to the creation of the harmful enantiomers, then there is no way that changes in the production process can mitigate the effects of harmful enantiomers. Choice "the metabolism of some drugs within the body can create harmful enantiomers regardless of whether the drug itself contains those enantiomers." exploits that gap in logic and is correct.
Among the other answers, choice "not all drug enantiomers are harmful and some can even be helpful in fighting certain diseases." can be eliminated because the argument is about exposure to harmful enantiomers, not whether all enantiomers are necessarily bad. Choice "many enantiomers only cause minor side effects rather than major health problems when ingested." can be eliminated because the argument is about limiting consumer exposure to all harmful enantiomers regardless of severity. Choice "the creation of harmful enantiomers are not the only side effect that drug manufacturers should seek to reduce." can be eliminated because the argument is only about enantiomers, not other side effects, and choice "enantiomers are difficult to detect and cannot be pinpointed as the cause of some health problems." can be eliminated because it does not deal with whether it is possible to limit consumer exposure to harmful enantiomers.
Whenever you are asked for an answer that "most logically completes" an argument, you can determine what type of question you're dealing with by looking immediately before the blank that the answer will fill in. Here that blank is preceded by "since," so you're looking for a reason, and before that it's "these processes do not prevent harm from some drug enantiomers." So you're looking to provide a reason that these processes don't prevent harm - you're looking to strengthen that idea.
In any strengthen/weaken problem it is extremely helpful to notice the gap in logic between the premises and conclusion, and here the "extra" information just before the conclusion gives you great insight into that. Notice the modifier "during the drug creation process" - that gives a good deal of specificity as to where the prevention of harm takes place. It limits the prevention of enantiomers to that narrow scope "during the drug creation process," leaving enantiomers to emerge during any other time period (during transport of the drugs, the drugs' interaction with their containers, when taken in combination with other drugs or foods, etc.). If you notice that, you can scan the answer choices looking for some other timeframe when these enantiomers emerge.
Choice "the metabolism of some drugs within the body can create harmful enantiomers regardless of whether the drug itself contains those enantiomers." gives you exactly such a situation where this could happen. If the metabolism of the drugs leads to the creation of the harmful enantiomers, then there is no way that changes in the production process can mitigate the effects of harmful enantiomers. Choice "the metabolism of some drugs within the body can create harmful enantiomers regardless of whether the drug itself contains those enantiomers." exploits that gap in logic and is correct.
Among the other answers, choice "not all drug enantiomers are harmful and some can even be helpful in fighting certain diseases." can be eliminated because the argument is about exposure to harmful enantiomers, not whether all enantiomers are necessarily bad. Choice "many enantiomers only cause minor side effects rather than major health problems when ingested." can be eliminated because the argument is about limiting consumer exposure to all harmful enantiomers regardless of severity. Choice "the creation of harmful enantiomers are not the only side effect that drug manufacturers should seek to reduce." can be eliminated because the argument is only about enantiomers, not other side effects, and choice "enantiomers are difficult to detect and cannot be pinpointed as the cause of some health problems." can be eliminated because it does not deal with whether it is possible to limit consumer exposure to harmful enantiomers.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
While the ivory trade has been banned in most developed nations, in newly-developed countries ivory is prized as a signal of wealth. In particular, there is great demand for complete elephant tusks - items that have spawned a counterfeit industry in which replicas of complete tusks are mass-produced and sold as real ivory. Buyers should beware, however, of tusks that have no imperfections as these are almost certainly counterfeits.
Which of the following most strengthens the argument above?
While the ivory trade has been banned in most developed nations, in newly-developed countries ivory is prized as a signal of wealth. In particular, there is great demand for complete elephant tusks - items that have spawned a counterfeit industry in which replicas of complete tusks are mass-produced and sold as real ivory. Buyers should beware, however, of tusks that have no imperfections as these are almost certainly counterfeits.
Which of the following most strengthens the argument above?
Tap to reveal answer
As you assess the argument, you should notice that there is very little direct evidence given for the conclusion that tusks without imperfections are almost certainly counterfeits. The premises only state that there is demand for tusks and that the counterfeiting of tusks is now an industry, but the conclusion is specific to one particular feature of tusks - if they're free from imperfection, they're counterfeit - without any evidence given for that. So your goal in the answer choices should be to find either a link between imperfections and authenticity or a link between perfect tusks and counterfeiting.
Choice C provides that first link: if real elephant tusks are often imperfect because of the way that elephants use their tusks, then it stands to reason that perfect tusks likely aren't authentic. Choice "Elephants regularly use their tusks to scrape bark from trees, a process that leads to the frequent chipping and breaking of tusks." is correct.
Among the incorrect answer choices, choice "Counterfeit ivory is often damaged during shipping due to the fragile material necessary to make the product cost-effective." actually weakens the argument by giving a reason why counterfeit tusks would have imperfections. And choices "Many ivory purchasers are aware of the counterfeit market and are as happy with fake ivory as they would be with real ivory.", "Some governments in developing economies have encouraged the counterfeit ivory market as a way to satisfy demand without harming animals to increase the supply.", and "The process of counterfeiting ivory has become so sophisticated that it is difficult for most people to tell the difference between authentic and counterfeit tusks." miss the point of the conclusion entirely - none of them deals with the link between perfect tusks and counterfeit tusks.
Recognize, also, an important lesson here: extra words (modifiers, adjectives, etc.) matter in conclusions! The most popular incorrect answer choice, "The process of counterfeiting ivory has become so sophisticated that it is difficult for most people to tell the difference between authentic and counterfeit tusks.", gives a reason that buyers should be careful in general. But the conclusion is that buyers should beware specifically of those tusks that have no imperfections. That modifying phrase "that have no imperfections" is crucial to your understanding of the argument.
As you assess the argument, you should notice that there is very little direct evidence given for the conclusion that tusks without imperfections are almost certainly counterfeits. The premises only state that there is demand for tusks and that the counterfeiting of tusks is now an industry, but the conclusion is specific to one particular feature of tusks - if they're free from imperfection, they're counterfeit - without any evidence given for that. So your goal in the answer choices should be to find either a link between imperfections and authenticity or a link between perfect tusks and counterfeiting.
Choice C provides that first link: if real elephant tusks are often imperfect because of the way that elephants use their tusks, then it stands to reason that perfect tusks likely aren't authentic. Choice "Elephants regularly use their tusks to scrape bark from trees, a process that leads to the frequent chipping and breaking of tusks." is correct.
Among the incorrect answer choices, choice "Counterfeit ivory is often damaged during shipping due to the fragile material necessary to make the product cost-effective." actually weakens the argument by giving a reason why counterfeit tusks would have imperfections. And choices "Many ivory purchasers are aware of the counterfeit market and are as happy with fake ivory as they would be with real ivory.", "Some governments in developing economies have encouraged the counterfeit ivory market as a way to satisfy demand without harming animals to increase the supply.", and "The process of counterfeiting ivory has become so sophisticated that it is difficult for most people to tell the difference between authentic and counterfeit tusks." miss the point of the conclusion entirely - none of them deals with the link between perfect tusks and counterfeit tusks.
Recognize, also, an important lesson here: extra words (modifiers, adjectives, etc.) matter in conclusions! The most popular incorrect answer choice, "The process of counterfeiting ivory has become so sophisticated that it is difficult for most people to tell the difference between authentic and counterfeit tusks.", gives a reason that buyers should be careful in general. But the conclusion is that buyers should beware specifically of those tusks that have no imperfections. That modifying phrase "that have no imperfections" is crucial to your understanding of the argument.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
Many students complain about the increasing size of classes taught by more popular university professors. They disregard the fact that, though the number of students at the university has doubled over the past eight years, the faculty-to-student ratio has decreased from 1:17 to 1:14. Clearly, the students are misinformed in their complaint.
Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the conclusion of the argument above?
Many students complain about the increasing size of classes taught by more popular university professors. They disregard the fact that, though the number of students at the university has doubled over the past eight years, the faculty-to-student ratio has decreased from 1:17 to 1:14. Clearly, the students are misinformed in their complaint.
Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the conclusion of the argument above?
Tap to reveal answer
With Strengthen/Weaken problems, it is important to read adjectives, modifiers, and anything else "additional" that specifies the conclusion, as that is often where the gap in logic lies. Here the conclusion is "clearly, the students are misinformed in their complaint," which should encourage you to look at the specificity of that complaint. Their complaint is not about "class sizes" in general, but more specifically "the size of classes taught by the most popular professors."
This is critical, as it sets up the gap: the statistic given is about the general student-to-teacher ratio, not the ratio for those specific classes taught by the most popular professor. So as you approach the answer choices, you're looking to exploit that gap: how could the overall ratio have become lower, while the ratio for the classes in question have gotten higher.
Choice "Many of the most popular tenured professors commonly teach courses that have ten times the number of students enrolled in an average course." exploits that gap perfectly: if the classes of the most popular professors have 10 times the typical number of students, then the general ratio doesn't apply to the specific complaint. Therefore, choice "Many of the most popular tenured professors commonly teach courses that have ten times the number of students enrolled in an average course."is correct.
Among the other answer choices, choice "Most of the faculty members at the university are part-time instructors or teaching assistants and not full-time, tenure-track professors." is a good distracter choice. It would seem that if most of the faculty members are not full-time professors that the professors would have larger classes, yet this requires an assumption that choice "Many of the most popular tenured professors commonly teach courses that have ten times the number of students enrolled in an average course." does not. With choice "Most of the faculty members at the university are part-time instructors or teaching assistants and not full-time, tenure-track professors." it is still possible that all courses have even numbers of students and those courses taught by full professors have only 14 students. Choices "Some other universities in the state have lower faculty-to-student ratios." and "The average class size at the university varies from department to department." do not bear directly on the question as to whether the size of the courses of popular professors is increasing. Even if true, Choice "None of the students who complained is willing to pay increased tuition in order to have smaller classes." does not indicate whether the students are misinformed in their claims about class size.
With Strengthen/Weaken problems, it is important to read adjectives, modifiers, and anything else "additional" that specifies the conclusion, as that is often where the gap in logic lies. Here the conclusion is "clearly, the students are misinformed in their complaint," which should encourage you to look at the specificity of that complaint. Their complaint is not about "class sizes" in general, but more specifically "the size of classes taught by the most popular professors."
This is critical, as it sets up the gap: the statistic given is about the general student-to-teacher ratio, not the ratio for those specific classes taught by the most popular professor. So as you approach the answer choices, you're looking to exploit that gap: how could the overall ratio have become lower, while the ratio for the classes in question have gotten higher.
Choice "Many of the most popular tenured professors commonly teach courses that have ten times the number of students enrolled in an average course." exploits that gap perfectly: if the classes of the most popular professors have 10 times the typical number of students, then the general ratio doesn't apply to the specific complaint. Therefore, choice "Many of the most popular tenured professors commonly teach courses that have ten times the number of students enrolled in an average course."is correct.
Among the other answer choices, choice "Most of the faculty members at the university are part-time instructors or teaching assistants and not full-time, tenure-track professors." is a good distracter choice. It would seem that if most of the faculty members are not full-time professors that the professors would have larger classes, yet this requires an assumption that choice "Many of the most popular tenured professors commonly teach courses that have ten times the number of students enrolled in an average course." does not. With choice "Most of the faculty members at the university are part-time instructors or teaching assistants and not full-time, tenure-track professors." it is still possible that all courses have even numbers of students and those courses taught by full professors have only 14 students. Choices "Some other universities in the state have lower faculty-to-student ratios." and "The average class size at the university varies from department to department." do not bear directly on the question as to whether the size of the courses of popular professors is increasing. Even if true, Choice "None of the students who complained is willing to pay increased tuition in order to have smaller classes." does not indicate whether the students are misinformed in their claims about class size.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
Large wildfires are among the most serious natural disasters in the world, causing billions of dollars of damage and dozens, if not hundreds, of deaths each year. Perhaps surprisingly, most fire departments in wildfire-prone areas cite safety as their reason for choosing not to extinguish small brush fires. These small fires, they say, can help clear the dry brush and debris that fuels the large, catastrophic fires.
Which of the following, if true, provides the best justification for the fire departments’ choice to not extinguish small brush fires?
Large wildfires are among the most serious natural disasters in the world, causing billions of dollars of damage and dozens, if not hundreds, of deaths each year. Perhaps surprisingly, most fire departments in wildfire-prone areas cite safety as their reason for choosing not to extinguish small brush fires. These small fires, they say, can help clear the dry brush and debris that fuels the large, catastrophic fires.
Which of the following, if true, provides the best justification for the fire departments’ choice to not extinguish small brush fires?
Tap to reveal answer
On this Strengthen question, note the potentially paradoxical logic the fire departments use. Their concern is safety (an important clue the testmakers leave in the sentence that outlines the departments' actions), so why would they choose not to extinguish small fires?
Choice "Only some small brush fires expand to become large, catastrophic fires." is inconsistent with the idea of safety. Even "only some" small fires turn into catastrophic fires, failing to extinguish them risks or sacrifices at least some safety. And that is certainly not a reason to actively choose not to extinguish them in the name of safety.
Choice "Most fire departments would be unable to extinguish every small brush fire without having to hire additional staff." also falls victim to the notion of safety. If the fire departments had cited cost as their reason, then "Most fire departments would be unable to extinguish every small brush fire without having to hire additional staff." totally works - hiring more firefighters to fight these small fires would certainly come at a cost. But if their cited concern is safety, the reason that "we would have to hire more people and spend more money" is not consistent with their stated goals/priorities.
Choice "There is no means other than fire for clearing dry brush and debris in wildfire-prone areas." is correct. If letting the small fires burn is the only known way to eliminate the brush that could fuel a larger fire, then choosing to not extinguish the fire works with the idea of safety - that decision is made to help prevent larger fires from having sufficient fuel to be catastrophic.
Choice "The most common causes of small brush fires are carelessly-discarded cigarette butts and poorly-extinguished campfires, each of which is easily preventable through fire education." is incorrect in large part because of its timeline. The departments are choosing not to extinguish fires that are already burning, so relying on education to prevent new fires from starting isn't a valid reason - that solution will do nothing to help the existing fires.
And choice "Small brush fires enrich the soil beneath them, leading to fertile land for agriculture and natural beauty." simply misses the mark of safety - sure, the fires might leave a beautiful, productive landscape but if safety is a cost of that then the fire departments are violating their stated reason for the choice not to extinguish the fire.
On this Strengthen question, note the potentially paradoxical logic the fire departments use. Their concern is safety (an important clue the testmakers leave in the sentence that outlines the departments' actions), so why would they choose not to extinguish small fires?
Choice "Only some small brush fires expand to become large, catastrophic fires." is inconsistent with the idea of safety. Even "only some" small fires turn into catastrophic fires, failing to extinguish them risks or sacrifices at least some safety. And that is certainly not a reason to actively choose not to extinguish them in the name of safety.
Choice "Most fire departments would be unable to extinguish every small brush fire without having to hire additional staff." also falls victim to the notion of safety. If the fire departments had cited cost as their reason, then "Most fire departments would be unable to extinguish every small brush fire without having to hire additional staff." totally works - hiring more firefighters to fight these small fires would certainly come at a cost. But if their cited concern is safety, the reason that "we would have to hire more people and spend more money" is not consistent with their stated goals/priorities.
Choice "There is no means other than fire for clearing dry brush and debris in wildfire-prone areas." is correct. If letting the small fires burn is the only known way to eliminate the brush that could fuel a larger fire, then choosing to not extinguish the fire works with the idea of safety - that decision is made to help prevent larger fires from having sufficient fuel to be catastrophic.
Choice "The most common causes of small brush fires are carelessly-discarded cigarette butts and poorly-extinguished campfires, each of which is easily preventable through fire education." is incorrect in large part because of its timeline. The departments are choosing not to extinguish fires that are already burning, so relying on education to prevent new fires from starting isn't a valid reason - that solution will do nothing to help the existing fires.
And choice "Small brush fires enrich the soil beneath them, leading to fertile land for agriculture and natural beauty." simply misses the mark of safety - sure, the fires might leave a beautiful, productive landscape but if safety is a cost of that then the fire departments are violating their stated reason for the choice not to extinguish the fire.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
According to a recent study, employees who bring their own lunches to work take fewer sick days and are, on average, more productive per hour spent at work than those who eat at the workplace cafeteria. In order to minimize the number of sick days taken by its staff, Boltech Industries plans to eliminate its cafeteria.
Which of the following, if true, provides the most reason to believe that Boltech Industries' strategy will not accomplish its objective?
According to a recent study, employees who bring their own lunches to work take fewer sick days and are, on average, more productive per hour spent at work than those who eat at the workplace cafeteria. In order to minimize the number of sick days taken by its staff, Boltech Industries plans to eliminate its cafeteria.
Which of the following, if true, provides the most reason to believe that Boltech Industries' strategy will not accomplish its objective?
Tap to reveal answer
The strategy outlined in this Weaken problem makes a classic error of correlation vs. causation, assuming that "bringing lunch to work" is a cause of "takes fewer sick days." In actuality, it could be that bringing lunch is an effect of a totally different cause, as choice "Employees who bring their lunch from home tend to lead generally healthier lifestyles than do employees who purchase lunch." correctly points out. With choice "Employees who bring their lunch from home tend to lead generally healthier lifestyles than do employees who purchase lunch.", the cause of both "brings lunch to work" and "takes fewer sick days" is that generally-healthier people do both - they bring their lunch to work and they take fewer sick days. Forcing someone else - someone less healthy - to bring his or her lunch wouldn't change the other unhealthy habits that lead to extra sick days, so the plan would not work.
While choice "Boltech's cafeteria is known for serving a diverse array of healthy lunch options." seems like it should weaken the plan (taking away the healthy options at the cafeteria), keep in mind that we already have the evidence that those who bring their lunch take fewer sick days than those who eat at the cafeteria, so those healthy cafeteria options have already been called into question as a driver of fewer sick days.
Choice "Because of Boltech's location, employees who choose to visit a nearby restaurant for lunch will seldom be able to return within an hour." could very well be correct if the goal were to minimize "time away from one's desk" or something similar, but the goal is specifically called out as "fewer sick days." Being away for a longer period for lunch may well be a problem worth considering, but in the context of this particular goal it is irrelevant.
Choice "Employees have expressed concern about the cost of dining at nearby restaurants compared with the affordability of the Boltech cafeteria." is similar: it shows a reason why the plan might not be a great plan overall (it could hurt employee morale) but the goal is specifically drawn at "fewer sick days" so that morale is irrelevant to the specific aims in the problem. For similar reasons, choice "Many Boltech employees chose to work for the company in large part because of its generous benefits, such as an on-site cafeteria and fitness center." is also incorrect - while morale may be hurt and people might feel misled (or future recruitment efforts may fall short), the only objective specifically addressed in the problem is "reduce the number of sick days" so choice "Many Boltech employees chose to work for the company in large part because of its generous benefits, such as an on-site cafeteria and fitness center." is not relevant.
The strategy outlined in this Weaken problem makes a classic error of correlation vs. causation, assuming that "bringing lunch to work" is a cause of "takes fewer sick days." In actuality, it could be that bringing lunch is an effect of a totally different cause, as choice "Employees who bring their lunch from home tend to lead generally healthier lifestyles than do employees who purchase lunch." correctly points out. With choice "Employees who bring their lunch from home tend to lead generally healthier lifestyles than do employees who purchase lunch.", the cause of both "brings lunch to work" and "takes fewer sick days" is that generally-healthier people do both - they bring their lunch to work and they take fewer sick days. Forcing someone else - someone less healthy - to bring his or her lunch wouldn't change the other unhealthy habits that lead to extra sick days, so the plan would not work.
While choice "Boltech's cafeteria is known for serving a diverse array of healthy lunch options." seems like it should weaken the plan (taking away the healthy options at the cafeteria), keep in mind that we already have the evidence that those who bring their lunch take fewer sick days than those who eat at the cafeteria, so those healthy cafeteria options have already been called into question as a driver of fewer sick days.
Choice "Because of Boltech's location, employees who choose to visit a nearby restaurant for lunch will seldom be able to return within an hour." could very well be correct if the goal were to minimize "time away from one's desk" or something similar, but the goal is specifically called out as "fewer sick days." Being away for a longer period for lunch may well be a problem worth considering, but in the context of this particular goal it is irrelevant.
Choice "Employees have expressed concern about the cost of dining at nearby restaurants compared with the affordability of the Boltech cafeteria." is similar: it shows a reason why the plan might not be a great plan overall (it could hurt employee morale) but the goal is specifically drawn at "fewer sick days" so that morale is irrelevant to the specific aims in the problem. For similar reasons, choice "Many Boltech employees chose to work for the company in large part because of its generous benefits, such as an on-site cafeteria and fitness center." is also incorrect - while morale may be hurt and people might feel misled (or future recruitment efforts may fall short), the only objective specifically addressed in the problem is "reduce the number of sick days" so choice "Many Boltech employees chose to work for the company in large part because of its generous benefits, such as an on-site cafeteria and fitness center." is not relevant.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
In an effort to eliminate congestion in the stadium entryways immediately before matches start, Plymouth Soccer Club has announced that it will host children’s soccer exhibitions two hours before matches start, typically at noon. This way, some fans will have an incentive to enter the stadium well before kickoff, keeping the entryways clearer immediately before a match starts.
Which of the following indicates a reason that the plan may fail to reach its objective?
In an effort to eliminate congestion in the stadium entryways immediately before matches start, Plymouth Soccer Club has announced that it will host children’s soccer exhibitions two hours before matches start, typically at noon. This way, some fans will have an incentive to enter the stadium well before kickoff, keeping the entryways clearer immediately before a match starts.
Which of the following indicates a reason that the plan may fail to reach its objective?
Tap to reveal answer
In these “Weaken the Plan” questions, your job is to find a reason that the plan will not work. And "The train line taken by most Plymouth Soccer Club spectators to the stadium arrives every four hours starting at 11:30am." supplies one – if most people cannot arrive before 11:30am, they won’t be able to respond to the new promotion of events before a noon game. Choice "The neighboring Canton Soccer Club has found that the best way to incent spectators to arrive early is to discount all concessions up to an hour before kickoff."is incorrect in that the potential existence of a better plan doesn’t necessarily mean that this plan will not work. Similarly choice "The children’s exhibitions will likely tear up the turf before the premier match begins, resulting in a lower-quality playing surface for the main event." is out of scope – the field quality is irrelevant as to whether the plan will reach its objective of reducing congestion near game time. Choices "Some fans of the Plymouth Soccer Club must travel for several hours to attend matches at the stadium." and "Because of its original design, the stadium used by Plymouth Soccer Club has fewer entryways than any other stadium in the surrounding area.", similarly, do not hinder the plan’s chance of reaching its objective.
In these “Weaken the Plan” questions, your job is to find a reason that the plan will not work. And "The train line taken by most Plymouth Soccer Club spectators to the stadium arrives every four hours starting at 11:30am." supplies one – if most people cannot arrive before 11:30am, they won’t be able to respond to the new promotion of events before a noon game. Choice "The neighboring Canton Soccer Club has found that the best way to incent spectators to arrive early is to discount all concessions up to an hour before kickoff."is incorrect in that the potential existence of a better plan doesn’t necessarily mean that this plan will not work. Similarly choice "The children’s exhibitions will likely tear up the turf before the premier match begins, resulting in a lower-quality playing surface for the main event." is out of scope – the field quality is irrelevant as to whether the plan will reach its objective of reducing congestion near game time. Choices "Some fans of the Plymouth Soccer Club must travel for several hours to attend matches at the stadium." and "Because of its original design, the stadium used by Plymouth Soccer Club has fewer entryways than any other stadium in the surrounding area.", similarly, do not hinder the plan’s chance of reaching its objective.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
Department of Energy Spokesman: Energy consumers who pay their own utility bills have a direct financial incentive to use less energy. But in most of our nation's residential rental properties, the owner of the property - not the tenant who directly consumes that property's energy - pays the utility bill. In order to reduce our nation's energy consumption, we should require that tenants be responsible for paying their utility bills in residential rental properties.
Which of the following is a reason to believe that the plan outlined above will not reach its goal?
Department of Energy Spokesman: Energy consumers who pay their own utility bills have a direct financial incentive to use less energy. But in most of our nation's residential rental properties, the owner of the property - not the tenant who directly consumes that property's energy - pays the utility bill. In order to reduce our nation's energy consumption, we should require that tenants be responsible for paying their utility bills in residential rental properties.
Which of the following is a reason to believe that the plan outlined above will not reach its goal?
Tap to reveal answer
In this Plan/Strategy question, the goal is to reduce a nation's energy consumption, and the plan is to require tenants to be the payers of utility bills (as opposed to the owners of those properties). Remember: with Plan/Strategy questions, two concepts are crucial:
-
Pay close attention to the specific goal, which plays the same role as the conclusion in a classic Strengthen/Weaken question. Trap answers are often related to the general topic but do not affect the specific goal.
-
A better plan does not weaken the provided plan! Your job is only to assess whether this plan will achieve this objective, not whether it's the best plan, the most efficient plan, etc.
Note that each of "Most of the country's energy consumption comes from commercial real estate, not residential real estate." and "Other nations have had success reducing energy consumption by offering rental subsidies for tenants whose energy usage falls below certain thresholds." suggests a "better plan" - "Most of the country's energy consumption comes from commercial real estate, not residential real estate." suggests that this plan wouldn't be as effective as one that tackled energy usage in commercial real estate and E suggests that rental subsidies could be a better program. But neither directly weakens this plan: as long as less energy is used under this plan, the plan has achieved its goal of reducing energy usage. So "Most of the country's energy consumption comes from commercial real estate, not residential real estate." and "Other nations have had success reducing energy consumption by offering rental subsidies for tenants whose energy usage falls below certain thresholds." may be tempting, but they are incorrect.
Choice "When owners of rental properties are responsible for utility bills, they are more likely to ensure that a property's appliances and furnaces are the most energy-efficient versions." is correct: if giving the tenants an incentive to use less energy also remove the incentive for the landowners to pursue energy-saving policies, that suggests that this plan may not work at all: it may not result in any energy reduction.
Choices "Most rental properties are rented by younger people, and people tend to be more conscious about environmental issues like energy consumption when they are younger." and "Energy bills are calculated not only by the amount of energy used, but also by the times of day during which energy is used." are too far from the scope of the current plan and its goal, and are also incorrect. "When owners of rental properties are responsible for utility bills, they are more likely to ensure that a property's appliances and furnaces are the most energy-efficient versions." is the correct choice.
In this Plan/Strategy question, the goal is to reduce a nation's energy consumption, and the plan is to require tenants to be the payers of utility bills (as opposed to the owners of those properties). Remember: with Plan/Strategy questions, two concepts are crucial:
-
Pay close attention to the specific goal, which plays the same role as the conclusion in a classic Strengthen/Weaken question. Trap answers are often related to the general topic but do not affect the specific goal.
-
A better plan does not weaken the provided plan! Your job is only to assess whether this plan will achieve this objective, not whether it's the best plan, the most efficient plan, etc.
Note that each of "Most of the country's energy consumption comes from commercial real estate, not residential real estate." and "Other nations have had success reducing energy consumption by offering rental subsidies for tenants whose energy usage falls below certain thresholds." suggests a "better plan" - "Most of the country's energy consumption comes from commercial real estate, not residential real estate." suggests that this plan wouldn't be as effective as one that tackled energy usage in commercial real estate and E suggests that rental subsidies could be a better program. But neither directly weakens this plan: as long as less energy is used under this plan, the plan has achieved its goal of reducing energy usage. So "Most of the country's energy consumption comes from commercial real estate, not residential real estate." and "Other nations have had success reducing energy consumption by offering rental subsidies for tenants whose energy usage falls below certain thresholds." may be tempting, but they are incorrect.
Choice "When owners of rental properties are responsible for utility bills, they are more likely to ensure that a property's appliances and furnaces are the most energy-efficient versions." is correct: if giving the tenants an incentive to use less energy also remove the incentive for the landowners to pursue energy-saving policies, that suggests that this plan may not work at all: it may not result in any energy reduction.
Choices "Most rental properties are rented by younger people, and people tend to be more conscious about environmental issues like energy consumption when they are younger." and "Energy bills are calculated not only by the amount of energy used, but also by the times of day during which energy is used." are too far from the scope of the current plan and its goal, and are also incorrect. "When owners of rental properties are responsible for utility bills, they are more likely to ensure that a property's appliances and furnaces are the most energy-efficient versions." is the correct choice.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
In the two years since the state legalized the sale and use of marijuana, Kerry County has seen a dramatic increase in marijuana use. This has caused an issue both with Kerry County’s largely older and more-conservative population and with local businesses that complain of the smell. To significantly reduce the use of marijuana within the county, Kerry County plans to implement a 50% sales tax on the sale of marijuana, believing that the higher cost will serve as a deterrent to many local marijuana users.
Each of the following constitutes a reason to believe that Kerry County’s plan will not achieve its goal EXCEPT:
In the two years since the state legalized the sale and use of marijuana, Kerry County has seen a dramatic increase in marijuana use. This has caused an issue both with Kerry County’s largely older and more-conservative population and with local businesses that complain of the smell. To significantly reduce the use of marijuana within the county, Kerry County plans to implement a 50% sales tax on the sale of marijuana, believing that the higher cost will serve as a deterrent to many local marijuana users.
Each of the following constitutes a reason to believe that Kerry County’s plan will not achieve its goal EXCEPT:
Tap to reveal answer
In any Plan/Strategy question, it is important to determine exactly what the goal of the plan is. Here the goal is to "substantially reduce marijuana use," which you should see is different from related goals (perhaps to reduce marijuana sales or to eliminate marijuana use). Precision in wording and understanding the exact goal are keys to these questions.
You can anticipate reasons that raising the sales tax and therefore the cost of marijuana might not result in a significant decrease in marijuana use. Focusing on use - and not sales - provides a great entry point: what if people find a way to get marijuana without having to buy it? Choice "The state law that legalized marijuana also allows residents to grow a small amount of marijuana for personal use." suggests that they might be able to simply grow it on their own and avoid both the price and the tax.
What if they can buy it somewhere else and avoid the tax? That leads to answer choices:
"Despite the legalization of marijuana, there remains a non-trivial black market for the illegal sale of marijuana in Kerry County.": If people can buy it on the black market and avoid paying the sales tax, then they can still use it without being affected by the tax.
"Kerry County is among the smallest counties in the state, with no location that is more than a 20-minute drive from a neighboring county.": If people can buy it nearby in a county that doesn't have the tax, then they'll avoid the tax.
What if the tax just isn't that big of a deterrent? Choice "Marijuana use has been most popular among young professionals, a demographic that tends to have a large amount of disposable income." suggests that the largest group of users may must not care about paying more to use marijuana.
That leaves choice "Kerry County already levies similar "sin tax" sales taxes on other recreational drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.", which you should see does not directly address marijuana at all. Even if similar taxes for similar goods are already on the books, that still means that the net cost of marijuana will markedly increase under the sales tax. If that is, indeed, a deterrent then the taxes on similar goods won't matter. "Kerry County already levies similar "sin tax" sales taxes on other recreational drugs such as alcohol and tobacco." does not attack the problem head on, and is therefore the only answer choice that does not give reason to believe that the plan will not work.
In any Plan/Strategy question, it is important to determine exactly what the goal of the plan is. Here the goal is to "substantially reduce marijuana use," which you should see is different from related goals (perhaps to reduce marijuana sales or to eliminate marijuana use). Precision in wording and understanding the exact goal are keys to these questions.
You can anticipate reasons that raising the sales tax and therefore the cost of marijuana might not result in a significant decrease in marijuana use. Focusing on use - and not sales - provides a great entry point: what if people find a way to get marijuana without having to buy it? Choice "The state law that legalized marijuana also allows residents to grow a small amount of marijuana for personal use." suggests that they might be able to simply grow it on their own and avoid both the price and the tax.
What if they can buy it somewhere else and avoid the tax? That leads to answer choices:
"Despite the legalization of marijuana, there remains a non-trivial black market for the illegal sale of marijuana in Kerry County.": If people can buy it on the black market and avoid paying the sales tax, then they can still use it without being affected by the tax.
"Kerry County is among the smallest counties in the state, with no location that is more than a 20-minute drive from a neighboring county.": If people can buy it nearby in a county that doesn't have the tax, then they'll avoid the tax.
What if the tax just isn't that big of a deterrent? Choice "Marijuana use has been most popular among young professionals, a demographic that tends to have a large amount of disposable income." suggests that the largest group of users may must not care about paying more to use marijuana.
That leaves choice "Kerry County already levies similar "sin tax" sales taxes on other recreational drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.", which you should see does not directly address marijuana at all. Even if similar taxes for similar goods are already on the books, that still means that the net cost of marijuana will markedly increase under the sales tax. If that is, indeed, a deterrent then the taxes on similar goods won't matter. "Kerry County already levies similar "sin tax" sales taxes on other recreational drugs such as alcohol and tobacco." does not attack the problem head on, and is therefore the only answer choice that does not give reason to believe that the plan will not work.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
According to a recent study, employees who bring their own lunches to work take fewer sick days and are, on average, more productive per hour spent at work than those who eat at the workplace cafeteria. In order to minimize the number of sick days taken by its staff, Boltech Industries plans to eliminate its cafeteria.
Which of the following, if true, provides the most reason to believe that Boltech Industries' strategy will not accomplish its objective?
According to a recent study, employees who bring their own lunches to work take fewer sick days and are, on average, more productive per hour spent at work than those who eat at the workplace cafeteria. In order to minimize the number of sick days taken by its staff, Boltech Industries plans to eliminate its cafeteria.
Which of the following, if true, provides the most reason to believe that Boltech Industries' strategy will not accomplish its objective?
Tap to reveal answer
The strategy outlined in this Weaken problem makes a classic error of correlation vs. causation, assuming that "bringing lunch to work" is a cause of "takes fewer sick days." In actuality, it could be that bringing lunch is an effect of a totally different cause, as choice "Employees who bring their lunch from home tend to lead generally healthier lifestyles than do employees who purchase lunch." correctly points out. With choice "Employees who bring their lunch from home tend to lead generally healthier lifestyles than do employees who purchase lunch.", the cause of both "brings lunch to work" and "takes fewer sick days" is that generally-healthier people do both - they bring their lunch to work and they take fewer sick days. Forcing someone else - someone less healthy - to bring his or her lunch wouldn't change the other unhealthy habits that lead to extra sick days, so the plan would not work.
While choice "Boltech's cafeteria is known for serving a diverse array of healthy lunch options." seems like it should weaken the plan (taking away the healthy options at the cafeteria), keep in mind that we already have the evidence that those who bring their lunch take fewer sick days than those who eat at the cafeteria, so those healthy cafeteria options have already been called into question as a driver of fewer sick days.
Choice "Because of Boltech's location, employees who choose to visit a nearby restaurant for lunch will seldom be able to return within an hour." could very well be correct if the goal were to minimize "time away from one's desk" or something similar, but the goal is specifically called out as "fewer sick days." Being away for a longer period for lunch may well be a problem worth considering, but in the context of this particular goal it is irrelevant.
Choice "Employees have expressed concern about the cost of dining at nearby restaurants compared with the affordability of the Boltech cafeteria." is similar: it shows a reason why the plan might not be a great plan overall (it could hurt employee morale) but the goal is specifically drawn at "fewer sick days" so that morale is irrelevant to the specific aims in the problem. For similar reasons, choice "Many Boltech employees chose to work for the company in large part because of its generous benefits, such as an on-site cafeteria and fitness center." is also incorrect - while morale may be hurt and people might feel misled (or future recruitment efforts may fall short), the only objective specifically addressed in the problem is "reduce the number of sick days" so choice "Many Boltech employees chose to work for the company in large part because of its generous benefits, such as an on-site cafeteria and fitness center." is not relevant.
The strategy outlined in this Weaken problem makes a classic error of correlation vs. causation, assuming that "bringing lunch to work" is a cause of "takes fewer sick days." In actuality, it could be that bringing lunch is an effect of a totally different cause, as choice "Employees who bring their lunch from home tend to lead generally healthier lifestyles than do employees who purchase lunch." correctly points out. With choice "Employees who bring their lunch from home tend to lead generally healthier lifestyles than do employees who purchase lunch.", the cause of both "brings lunch to work" and "takes fewer sick days" is that generally-healthier people do both - they bring their lunch to work and they take fewer sick days. Forcing someone else - someone less healthy - to bring his or her lunch wouldn't change the other unhealthy habits that lead to extra sick days, so the plan would not work.
While choice "Boltech's cafeteria is known for serving a diverse array of healthy lunch options." seems like it should weaken the plan (taking away the healthy options at the cafeteria), keep in mind that we already have the evidence that those who bring their lunch take fewer sick days than those who eat at the cafeteria, so those healthy cafeteria options have already been called into question as a driver of fewer sick days.
Choice "Because of Boltech's location, employees who choose to visit a nearby restaurant for lunch will seldom be able to return within an hour." could very well be correct if the goal were to minimize "time away from one's desk" or something similar, but the goal is specifically called out as "fewer sick days." Being away for a longer period for lunch may well be a problem worth considering, but in the context of this particular goal it is irrelevant.
Choice "Employees have expressed concern about the cost of dining at nearby restaurants compared with the affordability of the Boltech cafeteria." is similar: it shows a reason why the plan might not be a great plan overall (it could hurt employee morale) but the goal is specifically drawn at "fewer sick days" so that morale is irrelevant to the specific aims in the problem. For similar reasons, choice "Many Boltech employees chose to work for the company in large part because of its generous benefits, such as an on-site cafeteria and fitness center." is also incorrect - while morale may be hurt and people might feel misled (or future recruitment efforts may fall short), the only objective specifically addressed in the problem is "reduce the number of sick days" so choice "Many Boltech employees chose to work for the company in large part because of its generous benefits, such as an on-site cafeteria and fitness center." is not relevant.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
In response to a high unemployment rate and to complaints from businesses that prospective employees are under-qualified for the available jobs, particularly in the sciences, the Labor Department has released its plan to remedy both problems. It will offer six-month training programs, free of charge to unemployed citizens, to prepare citizens for jobs as laboratory and medical technicians. Each citizen will have the opportunity to participate in one program free of charge, and the Labor Department will offer salary subsidies to firms that hire graduates of these programs.
Which of the following, if true, would constitute reason to believe that the labor department’s plan will not achieve its aims?
In response to a high unemployment rate and to complaints from businesses that prospective employees are under-qualified for the available jobs, particularly in the sciences, the Labor Department has released its plan to remedy both problems. It will offer six-month training programs, free of charge to unemployed citizens, to prepare citizens for jobs as laboratory and medical technicians. Each citizen will have the opportunity to participate in one program free of charge, and the Labor Department will offer salary subsidies to firms that hire graduates of these programs.
Which of the following, if true, would constitute reason to believe that the labor department’s plan will not achieve its aims?
Tap to reveal answer
In this Weaken the Plan question, the goal is to solve problems of high unemployment and a lack of qualified candidates for certain jobs. The plan, then, is to offer a free training program to unemployed citizens to prepare them for those jobs. But if "Successful graduates of technical training programs nearly always have scientific job experience prior to enrolling in such programs." were true - if the program required related job experience beforehand to be successful - then that plan is not likely to work on its own. Note that choices "Many universities and technical colleges offer nine- and twelve-month programs to train students in the same fields." and "The proposed program is significantly more expensive than several alternatives proposed by members of the legislative body." both commit the "cardinal sin" of Weaken the Plan questions - they propose better plans, but don't weaken this plan. Choice "Laboratory and medical technician jobs are not the only jobs for which companies are struggling to find qualified employees." is also incorrect; the goal isn't to "eliminate unemployment" but rather just to lessen it, and so "Laboratory and medical technician jobs are not the only jobs for which companies are struggling to find qualified employees." does not weaken the plan. And choice "Similar programs in neighboring countries have had mixed results." neither strengthens nor weaken the plan - it shows that there is a possibility that the plan could work and that it could not based on prior evidence, and doesn't give any reason to believe that this plan will fall in the "not" column.
In this Weaken the Plan question, the goal is to solve problems of high unemployment and a lack of qualified candidates for certain jobs. The plan, then, is to offer a free training program to unemployed citizens to prepare them for those jobs. But if "Successful graduates of technical training programs nearly always have scientific job experience prior to enrolling in such programs." were true - if the program required related job experience beforehand to be successful - then that plan is not likely to work on its own. Note that choices "Many universities and technical colleges offer nine- and twelve-month programs to train students in the same fields." and "The proposed program is significantly more expensive than several alternatives proposed by members of the legislative body." both commit the "cardinal sin" of Weaken the Plan questions - they propose better plans, but don't weaken this plan. Choice "Laboratory and medical technician jobs are not the only jobs for which companies are struggling to find qualified employees." is also incorrect; the goal isn't to "eliminate unemployment" but rather just to lessen it, and so "Laboratory and medical technician jobs are not the only jobs for which companies are struggling to find qualified employees." does not weaken the plan. And choice "Similar programs in neighboring countries have had mixed results." neither strengthens nor weaken the plan - it shows that there is a possibility that the plan could work and that it could not based on prior evidence, and doesn't give any reason to believe that this plan will fall in the "not" column.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
In an attempt to protect the environment and stop oil companies from sinking a decommissioned North Sea oil platform to the bottom of the ocean, environmental groups ringed the platform with protest boats and demanded that it be towed to land, where it could be dismantled above water. Environmentalists argued that sinking the oil platform would cause irreparable damage to the deep sea ecosystem and release into the ocean over 53 tons of oil residue and heavy metals.
Which of the following, if true, indicates the plan to tow the oil platform to land is ill-suited to the environmentalist group’s goals?
In an attempt to protect the environment and stop oil companies from sinking a decommissioned North Sea oil platform to the bottom of the ocean, environmental groups ringed the platform with protest boats and demanded that it be towed to land, where it could be dismantled above water. Environmentalists argued that sinking the oil platform would cause irreparable damage to the deep sea ecosystem and release into the ocean over 53 tons of oil residue and heavy metals.
Which of the following, if true, indicates the plan to tow the oil platform to land is ill-suited to the environmentalist group’s goals?
Tap to reveal answer
This is a Weaken question, due to the phrase, “which of the following…indicates the plan…is ill-suited.” However, unlike other Weaken questions that focus on arguments containing premises and conclusions, this problem focuses on the steps and goals of a particular plan. Thus, instead of zeroing in on a conclusion (as we normally would if attempting to weaken a traditional argument), we pay special attention to the goal of the plan. The correct answer will show that the proposed solution would not meet the predefined goals. The primary goal of the environmental groups is found in the very first sentence of the question: they want to “protect the environment”. To reach this goal, their plan is to keep a decommissioned oil platform from sinking. Naturally, any answer choice that shows the plan does not “protect the environment” could potentially weaken the efficacy of the solution.
Answer choice “The National Environmental Research Council approved the sinking of the oil platform, calling it the “best practicable environmental option.”” uses a fairly common trick of the Testmaker: luring test takers into accepting an “expert opinion” when the evaluatory criteria used by the expert are not explicitly stated. While the expert (in this case, the National Environmental Research Council) may give an official statement, this does not mean that the expert has the same goals or motives as the environmental groups have. “The best practicable environmental option” may or may not protect the environment. Answer choice “The National Environmental Research Council approved the sinking of the oil platform, calling it the “best practicable environmental option.”” does not necessarily weaken the plan.
Answer choice “Dismantling the oil platform on land would cost over 70 million dollars, compared to the $7.5 million needed to secure and sink it in a deep ocean location.” is a misdirection answer. Here the Testmaker introduces different criteria than those used by the environmental groups (in this case, the cost of different options.) As compelling as saving millions of dollars may be, the goal of the environmental groups is to “protect the environment” not “save money”. Our goal is to undermine the efficacy of the proposed plan in meeting the proposed goal; whether the plan saves money is irrelevant.
Answer choice “The release of 53 tons of toxic material into the ocean is very little compared to the volume of very highly toxic materials released by deep sea volcanoes.” is also a misdirection answer. It tries to get novice test takers to focus on other sources of toxic materials irrelevant to the goals of the proposed plan: environmentalists could still protect the environment from the toxic materials released by sinking the oil platform, regardless of the amount of chemicals released by natural phenomena.
(Now, if they could somehow plug an undersea volcano by sinking the oil platform, that would be another story entirely; however, such a possibility is not mentioned here!)
Answer choice “Towing the oil platform into shallow waters poses a massive risk that it may break up on its way to land, releasing the contained pollutants into fragile coastal waters.” shows us how the potential effects of the environmentalists’ plan could actually pose a greater risk to the environment, thus undermining the environmentalists’ goal of “protecting the environment”. Answer choice “Towing the oil platform into shallow waters poses a massive risk that it may break up on its way to land, releasing the contained pollutants into fragile coastal waters.” weakens the plan.
Answer choice “The sinking of the platform is fully in line with internationally approved guidelines for the disposal of off shore installations at sea.” is another variation on the “expert opinion” trap used by the Testmaker. Even if the disposal process were “internationally approved” (implying the “okay” of some governing body), this could still come in conflict with the environmentalists’ goals.
This is a Weaken question, due to the phrase, “which of the following…indicates the plan…is ill-suited.” However, unlike other Weaken questions that focus on arguments containing premises and conclusions, this problem focuses on the steps and goals of a particular plan. Thus, instead of zeroing in on a conclusion (as we normally would if attempting to weaken a traditional argument), we pay special attention to the goal of the plan. The correct answer will show that the proposed solution would not meet the predefined goals. The primary goal of the environmental groups is found in the very first sentence of the question: they want to “protect the environment”. To reach this goal, their plan is to keep a decommissioned oil platform from sinking. Naturally, any answer choice that shows the plan does not “protect the environment” could potentially weaken the efficacy of the solution.
Answer choice “The National Environmental Research Council approved the sinking of the oil platform, calling it the “best practicable environmental option.”” uses a fairly common trick of the Testmaker: luring test takers into accepting an “expert opinion” when the evaluatory criteria used by the expert are not explicitly stated. While the expert (in this case, the National Environmental Research Council) may give an official statement, this does not mean that the expert has the same goals or motives as the environmental groups have. “The best practicable environmental option” may or may not protect the environment. Answer choice “The National Environmental Research Council approved the sinking of the oil platform, calling it the “best practicable environmental option.”” does not necessarily weaken the plan.
Answer choice “Dismantling the oil platform on land would cost over 70 million dollars, compared to the $7.5 million needed to secure and sink it in a deep ocean location.” is a misdirection answer. Here the Testmaker introduces different criteria than those used by the environmental groups (in this case, the cost of different options.) As compelling as saving millions of dollars may be, the goal of the environmental groups is to “protect the environment” not “save money”. Our goal is to undermine the efficacy of the proposed plan in meeting the proposed goal; whether the plan saves money is irrelevant.
Answer choice “The release of 53 tons of toxic material into the ocean is very little compared to the volume of very highly toxic materials released by deep sea volcanoes.” is also a misdirection answer. It tries to get novice test takers to focus on other sources of toxic materials irrelevant to the goals of the proposed plan: environmentalists could still protect the environment from the toxic materials released by sinking the oil platform, regardless of the amount of chemicals released by natural phenomena.
(Now, if they could somehow plug an undersea volcano by sinking the oil platform, that would be another story entirely; however, such a possibility is not mentioned here!)
Answer choice “Towing the oil platform into shallow waters poses a massive risk that it may break up on its way to land, releasing the contained pollutants into fragile coastal waters.” shows us how the potential effects of the environmentalists’ plan could actually pose a greater risk to the environment, thus undermining the environmentalists’ goal of “protecting the environment”. Answer choice “Towing the oil platform into shallow waters poses a massive risk that it may break up on its way to land, releasing the contained pollutants into fragile coastal waters.” weakens the plan.
Answer choice “The sinking of the platform is fully in line with internationally approved guidelines for the disposal of off shore installations at sea.” is another variation on the “expert opinion” trap used by the Testmaker. Even if the disposal process were “internationally approved” (implying the “okay” of some governing body), this could still come in conflict with the environmentalists’ goals.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
Members of the staff at the local daycare suggest that parents would have more incentive to pick up their children on time if the parents were assessed a fine after arriving more than 10 minutes late to pick up their children.
Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues the most strongly against the effectiveness of the suggestion above?
Members of the staff at the local daycare suggest that parents would have more incentive to pick up their children on time if the parents were assessed a fine after arriving more than 10 minutes late to pick up their children.
Which of the following, assuming that it is a realistic possibility, argues the most strongly against the effectiveness of the suggestion above?
Tap to reveal answer
This is a Weaken question, as evidenced by the phrase, “which of the following…argues most strongly against.” This particular problem highlights one of the sub-types of Weaken questions: notice that we are not necessarily looking at a logical argument, but instead at a proposed solution or plan. Whenever we encounter these kinds of Weaken questions, we need to mind the gap between the proposed goal of the plan and the methods used to obtain that goal. The disconnect often lies between those two components. In the case of this particular problem, the staff at a local daycare believes that parents would be incentivized to pick up their children if late fines were assessed. The question naturally arises: would late fines actually change the behavior of the perpetually late parents? Any answer choice that undermines this would weaken the plan.
Answer choice “By replacing social norms with market norms, fines might induce parents to weigh the “costs” of picking their children up late and, as a result, to frequently choose to be late.” does exactly that. This suggests that fines might actually exacerbate the behavior of parents to pick up their children late. This runs completely counter to the goals of the daycare staff, who hoped fines would reduce the propensity for parental lateness. “By replacing social norms with market norms, fines might induce parents to weigh the “costs” of picking their children up late and, as a result, to frequently choose to be late.” weakens the plan, and, therefore, is the correct answer.
Answer choice “There might be irreconcilable disagreements among the daycare staff about whether the late fines should be imposed.” is a distraction from the real issue. The entire question centers on the effectiveness of the plan to reduce parental lateness. Disagreements about whether the plan should be enacted are independent of any questions of effectiveness. The Testmaker is hoping that novice test takers “read between the lines” on this answer, imagining that such disagreements would lead to resistance and ineffectiveness.
This is a dangerous trap. No such connection is explicitly made here. Reading between the lines generally gets the novice test taker into trouble.
Answer choice “Late fines might cause some parents to enroll their children in other daycares.” is another distraction designed by the Testmaker to introduce additional (and irrelevant) criteria. The question stem asks us to consider situations that would reduce the “effectiveness” of the plan of using fines to incentivize parents to pick their children up on time. Answer choice “Late fines might cause some parents to enroll their children in other daycares.” gives us other side-effects (loss of enrollment), but this is outside the scope of the question.
Answer choice “Removing the late fine policy might actually increase the number of tardy pick-ups.” is completely irrelevant and is outside the scope of the problem. Since the question asks us to evaluate situations that would reduce the “effectiveness” of the current plan of using fines to incentivize parents to pick their children up on time, any suggestion that focuses on what happens after the plan is no longer in effect is irrelevant. We are only asked to evaluate what happens when the plan is in effect.
The Testmaker included answer choice “Some parents might pick up their children late no matter what level of fine is imposed against them.” as an alternative answer to confuse novice test takers. “Some parents might pick up their children late no matter what level of fine is imposed against them.” does tell us that some parents would still pick up their children late, regardless of the fines. This does weaken the argument by showing that the fine policy would not effective across the board. However, notice the distinction between answer choice “Some parents might pick up their children late no matter what level of fine is imposed against them.” and answer choice “By replacing social norms with market norms, fines might induce parents to weigh the “costs” of picking their children up late and, as a result, to frequently choose to be late.”. Answer choice “Some parents might pick up their children late no matter what level of fine is imposed against them.” is very limited, using phrases such as “some parents might.” On the other hand, answer choice “By replacing social norms with market norms, fines might induce parents to weigh the “costs” of picking their children up late and, as a result, to frequently choose to be late.” is much more broad-ranging, making an overarching statement about parents in general who might “frequently” choose to be late. “By replacing social norms with market norms, fines might induce parents to weigh the “costs” of picking their children up late and, as a result, to frequently choose to be late.” tells us that the policy could actually increase tardiness. Answer choice “Some parents might pick up their children late no matter what level of fine is imposed against them.” implies that the policy simply has no effect on a subgroup of people. Because answer choice “Some parents might pick up their children late no matter what level of fine is imposed against them.” is much softer than answer choice “By replacing social norms with market norms, fines might induce parents to weigh the “costs” of picking their children up late and, as a result, to frequently choose to be late.”, we would eliminate “Some parents might pick up their children late no matter what level of fine is imposed against them.” when comparing the two answers.
This is a Weaken question, as evidenced by the phrase, “which of the following…argues most strongly against.” This particular problem highlights one of the sub-types of Weaken questions: notice that we are not necessarily looking at a logical argument, but instead at a proposed solution or plan. Whenever we encounter these kinds of Weaken questions, we need to mind the gap between the proposed goal of the plan and the methods used to obtain that goal. The disconnect often lies between those two components. In the case of this particular problem, the staff at a local daycare believes that parents would be incentivized to pick up their children if late fines were assessed. The question naturally arises: would late fines actually change the behavior of the perpetually late parents? Any answer choice that undermines this would weaken the plan.
Answer choice “By replacing social norms with market norms, fines might induce parents to weigh the “costs” of picking their children up late and, as a result, to frequently choose to be late.” does exactly that. This suggests that fines might actually exacerbate the behavior of parents to pick up their children late. This runs completely counter to the goals of the daycare staff, who hoped fines would reduce the propensity for parental lateness. “By replacing social norms with market norms, fines might induce parents to weigh the “costs” of picking their children up late and, as a result, to frequently choose to be late.” weakens the plan, and, therefore, is the correct answer.
Answer choice “There might be irreconcilable disagreements among the daycare staff about whether the late fines should be imposed.” is a distraction from the real issue. The entire question centers on the effectiveness of the plan to reduce parental lateness. Disagreements about whether the plan should be enacted are independent of any questions of effectiveness. The Testmaker is hoping that novice test takers “read between the lines” on this answer, imagining that such disagreements would lead to resistance and ineffectiveness.
This is a dangerous trap. No such connection is explicitly made here. Reading between the lines generally gets the novice test taker into trouble.
Answer choice “Late fines might cause some parents to enroll their children in other daycares.” is another distraction designed by the Testmaker to introduce additional (and irrelevant) criteria. The question stem asks us to consider situations that would reduce the “effectiveness” of the plan of using fines to incentivize parents to pick their children up on time. Answer choice “Late fines might cause some parents to enroll their children in other daycares.” gives us other side-effects (loss of enrollment), but this is outside the scope of the question.
Answer choice “Removing the late fine policy might actually increase the number of tardy pick-ups.” is completely irrelevant and is outside the scope of the problem. Since the question asks us to evaluate situations that would reduce the “effectiveness” of the current plan of using fines to incentivize parents to pick their children up on time, any suggestion that focuses on what happens after the plan is no longer in effect is irrelevant. We are only asked to evaluate what happens when the plan is in effect.
The Testmaker included answer choice “Some parents might pick up their children late no matter what level of fine is imposed against them.” as an alternative answer to confuse novice test takers. “Some parents might pick up their children late no matter what level of fine is imposed against them.” does tell us that some parents would still pick up their children late, regardless of the fines. This does weaken the argument by showing that the fine policy would not effective across the board. However, notice the distinction between answer choice “Some parents might pick up their children late no matter what level of fine is imposed against them.” and answer choice “By replacing social norms with market norms, fines might induce parents to weigh the “costs” of picking their children up late and, as a result, to frequently choose to be late.”. Answer choice “Some parents might pick up their children late no matter what level of fine is imposed against them.” is very limited, using phrases such as “some parents might.” On the other hand, answer choice “By replacing social norms with market norms, fines might induce parents to weigh the “costs” of picking their children up late and, as a result, to frequently choose to be late.” is much more broad-ranging, making an overarching statement about parents in general who might “frequently” choose to be late. “By replacing social norms with market norms, fines might induce parents to weigh the “costs” of picking their children up late and, as a result, to frequently choose to be late.” tells us that the policy could actually increase tardiness. Answer choice “Some parents might pick up their children late no matter what level of fine is imposed against them.” implies that the policy simply has no effect on a subgroup of people. Because answer choice “Some parents might pick up their children late no matter what level of fine is imposed against them.” is much softer than answer choice “By replacing social norms with market norms, fines might induce parents to weigh the “costs” of picking their children up late and, as a result, to frequently choose to be late.”, we would eliminate “Some parents might pick up their children late no matter what level of fine is imposed against them.” when comparing the two answers.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
Public Safety Official: In 1998, our province's highway patrol arrested nearly 25,000 motorists for driving under the influence of alcohol. Over the past 20 years we have implemented a number of legal measures to increase penalties for driving under the influence and that have increased the number of law enforcement personnel patrolling for such offenses. This past year, even though our population has increased markedly since 1998, our province saw less than 18,000 arrests - a sure sign that these legal measures have been successful in preventing motorists from driving while under the influence.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the public safety official's claims?
Public Safety Official: In 1998, our province's highway patrol arrested nearly 25,000 motorists for driving under the influence of alcohol. Over the past 20 years we have implemented a number of legal measures to increase penalties for driving under the influence and that have increased the number of law enforcement personnel patrolling for such offenses. This past year, even though our population has increased markedly since 1998, our province saw less than 18,000 arrests - a sure sign that these legal measures have been successful in preventing motorists from driving while under the influence.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the public safety official's claims?
Tap to reveal answer
This argument features issues with two extremely common logical fallacies: 1) correlation vs. causation and 2) data pools that aren't necessarily comparable. If you see these elements in the gap in logic, you can anticipate the right answer.
First, notice that in the 20 years between arrest statistics that the official cites, many things could have occurred other than the laws she cites. What if, for example, alcohol tariffs made the price so exorbitant that everyone just quit drinking? Or the city built a system of canals and everyone just kayaks around town now? There could well be other causes for the statistic - the laws might be correlated with the time period, but did they really cause the outcome?
Second, notice that the use of actual-number data (25,000 arrests vs. 18,000 arrests) doesn't necessarily tie to the conclusion. Yes the number of arrests down (and the total population is up), but the conclusion is that the legislation was successful in "preventing motorists from driving under the influence." Since "motorists" is a subset of the total population, you'd really want to see a statistic that isn't just total number of arrests, but something more like arrests per 1,000 motorists" - a statistic that accounts for the fact that the number of motorists could be way down (in which case "motorists" - those who still drive - might still be driving under the influence quite frequently, but the overall statistic is down because there are simply much fewer drivers).
Given those errors in the argument, choice "Increased access to public transportation and ride-sharing applications has cut the number of drivers in the province by more than half." is correct - it shows that the number of motorists is down, and supplies an alternate cause for the drop in the number of arrests. People are using Lyft and taking the train, not driving anymore.
Among the other choices:
"The population in her province has increased at a lower rate than the populations of neighboring provinces." is irrelevant, as whether the population has grown at a high or low rate compared to other provinces, the fact remains that the population has still increased. (And really what you want to know is the number of drivers/motorists)
"The new legal measures have increased the province's law enforcement costs at nearly twice the rate that tax receipts have increased." seems like it should matter (is this a good use of money?) but remember that the specific conclusion is only about whether the laws worked, not about whether they were a wise use of funding. Always stay within the specific scope of the conclusion!
"Since 1998, the number of lawyers focusing on defending those arrested for driving under the influence has more than doubled." misses the mark because of its timing - the statistic used in the argument is about arrests, and notes that this intervention of lawyers occurs after the arrests have already taken place. If lawyers were acting before the arrests, that might suggest that the lawyers are causing the reduction in the number even though people are still drinking and driving, but that's not the case here - the lawyers in "Since 1998, the number of lawyers focusing on defending those arrested for driving under the influence has more than doubled." don't come into the picture early enough to explain away the number of arrests.
And "The number of restaurants and pubs permitted to sell alcohol in the province has increased since 1998 at approximately the same rate of the province's population." is similar - if the number of establishments serving alcohol were way down that might be part of an alternate explanation for the reduction in arrests, but with the number of restaurants and pubs serving alcohol increasing, that's not the case.
This argument features issues with two extremely common logical fallacies: 1) correlation vs. causation and 2) data pools that aren't necessarily comparable. If you see these elements in the gap in logic, you can anticipate the right answer.
First, notice that in the 20 years between arrest statistics that the official cites, many things could have occurred other than the laws she cites. What if, for example, alcohol tariffs made the price so exorbitant that everyone just quit drinking? Or the city built a system of canals and everyone just kayaks around town now? There could well be other causes for the statistic - the laws might be correlated with the time period, but did they really cause the outcome?
Second, notice that the use of actual-number data (25,000 arrests vs. 18,000 arrests) doesn't necessarily tie to the conclusion. Yes the number of arrests down (and the total population is up), but the conclusion is that the legislation was successful in "preventing motorists from driving under the influence." Since "motorists" is a subset of the total population, you'd really want to see a statistic that isn't just total number of arrests, but something more like arrests per 1,000 motorists" - a statistic that accounts for the fact that the number of motorists could be way down (in which case "motorists" - those who still drive - might still be driving under the influence quite frequently, but the overall statistic is down because there are simply much fewer drivers).
Given those errors in the argument, choice "Increased access to public transportation and ride-sharing applications has cut the number of drivers in the province by more than half." is correct - it shows that the number of motorists is down, and supplies an alternate cause for the drop in the number of arrests. People are using Lyft and taking the train, not driving anymore.
Among the other choices:
"The population in her province has increased at a lower rate than the populations of neighboring provinces." is irrelevant, as whether the population has grown at a high or low rate compared to other provinces, the fact remains that the population has still increased. (And really what you want to know is the number of drivers/motorists)
"The new legal measures have increased the province's law enforcement costs at nearly twice the rate that tax receipts have increased." seems like it should matter (is this a good use of money?) but remember that the specific conclusion is only about whether the laws worked, not about whether they were a wise use of funding. Always stay within the specific scope of the conclusion!
"Since 1998, the number of lawyers focusing on defending those arrested for driving under the influence has more than doubled." misses the mark because of its timing - the statistic used in the argument is about arrests, and notes that this intervention of lawyers occurs after the arrests have already taken place. If lawyers were acting before the arrests, that might suggest that the lawyers are causing the reduction in the number even though people are still drinking and driving, but that's not the case here - the lawyers in "Since 1998, the number of lawyers focusing on defending those arrested for driving under the influence has more than doubled." don't come into the picture early enough to explain away the number of arrests.
And "The number of restaurants and pubs permitted to sell alcohol in the province has increased since 1998 at approximately the same rate of the province's population." is similar - if the number of establishments serving alcohol were way down that might be part of an alternate explanation for the reduction in arrests, but with the number of restaurants and pubs serving alcohol increasing, that's not the case.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
A recent study suggests that not eating genetically modified foods can lead to a decreased risk of type 2 diabetes and heart disease. The study based this conclusion on the fact that individuals who ate only non genetically modified foods developed these conditions at lower rates than did individuals who ate both genetically modified and not genetically modified foods and concluded that the decreased risk of both diseases must be as a result of the individuals’ dietary differences.
Which of the following, if true, would weaken the conclusion that eating only non genetically modified foods leads to a lower risk of heart disease and type 2 diabetes?
A recent study suggests that not eating genetically modified foods can lead to a decreased risk of type 2 diabetes and heart disease. The study based this conclusion on the fact that individuals who ate only non genetically modified foods developed these conditions at lower rates than did individuals who ate both genetically modified and not genetically modified foods and concluded that the decreased risk of both diseases must be as a result of the individuals’ dietary differences.
Which of the following, if true, would weaken the conclusion that eating only non genetically modified foods leads to a lower risk of heart disease and type 2 diabetes?
Tap to reveal answer
As with any weaken question, your first goal should be to understand the argument presented and find the gap between the information given and the conclusion presented. In this argument, you are told that a study claims that not eating genetically modified foods (GMOs) leads to lower rates of type 2 diabetes and heart disease because people who didn't eat GMOs tend to develop type 2 diabetes and heart disease at a lower rate than do people who do eat GMOs.
The gap here is in the difference between correlation and causation. While there is a correlation between the behavior (not eating GMOs) and the outcome (not getting type 2 diabetes or heart disease), there is nothing that proves the outcome is due to the behavior. What if non-GMO foods were only available to individuals who were wealthy or who belonged to a specific ethnic group that developed both diseases at lower rates? The correct answer will exploit the gap between correlation and causation.
The only answer choice to do this is "Individuals who do not eat genetically modified foods also tend to exercise and make other healthy lifestyle choices associated with a decreased risk of both diseases.". If individuals who don't eat GMOs also engage in other activities known to lower the risk of both diseases, then it's impossible to tell if their decreased risk is due to the fact that they don't eat GMOs or the fact that they engage in these other activities. Maybe the cause of both (not eating GMOs and decreased risk) is their lifestyle, and those two effects are just correlated.
Among the other answers, "Genetically modified foods also tend to be organically grown, a process that uses fewer pesticides and artificial fertilizers than does conventional agriculture." can be eliminated because there is no way to link the practice of using pesticides or artificial fertilizers to diabetes or heart disease. Choice "Type II diabetes and heart disease are often exacerbated or triggered by poor diets, especially those high in processed grain-based foods and fat-heavy meat products." can be eliminated since it does not address anything to do with the conclusion, which is specifically about genetically modified foods. Choice "It is possible that some individuals could be naturally resistant to developing both type 2 diabetes and heart disease regardless of diet." can also be eliminated for the same reason - there is no reason that these individuals wouldn't have shown up in both groups. Choice "Other studies have examined the effects of organic food on the risk of developing both diseases, but not on the effects of genetically modified food." can be eliminated as well since whether other studies have looked at this issue doesn't impact whether or not the conclusion is correct.
As with any weaken question, your first goal should be to understand the argument presented and find the gap between the information given and the conclusion presented. In this argument, you are told that a study claims that not eating genetically modified foods (GMOs) leads to lower rates of type 2 diabetes and heart disease because people who didn't eat GMOs tend to develop type 2 diabetes and heart disease at a lower rate than do people who do eat GMOs.
The gap here is in the difference between correlation and causation. While there is a correlation between the behavior (not eating GMOs) and the outcome (not getting type 2 diabetes or heart disease), there is nothing that proves the outcome is due to the behavior. What if non-GMO foods were only available to individuals who were wealthy or who belonged to a specific ethnic group that developed both diseases at lower rates? The correct answer will exploit the gap between correlation and causation.
The only answer choice to do this is "Individuals who do not eat genetically modified foods also tend to exercise and make other healthy lifestyle choices associated with a decreased risk of both diseases.". If individuals who don't eat GMOs also engage in other activities known to lower the risk of both diseases, then it's impossible to tell if their decreased risk is due to the fact that they don't eat GMOs or the fact that they engage in these other activities. Maybe the cause of both (not eating GMOs and decreased risk) is their lifestyle, and those two effects are just correlated.
Among the other answers, "Genetically modified foods also tend to be organically grown, a process that uses fewer pesticides and artificial fertilizers than does conventional agriculture." can be eliminated because there is no way to link the practice of using pesticides or artificial fertilizers to diabetes or heart disease. Choice "Type II diabetes and heart disease are often exacerbated or triggered by poor diets, especially those high in processed grain-based foods and fat-heavy meat products." can be eliminated since it does not address anything to do with the conclusion, which is specifically about genetically modified foods. Choice "It is possible that some individuals could be naturally resistant to developing both type 2 diabetes and heart disease regardless of diet." can also be eliminated for the same reason - there is no reason that these individuals wouldn't have shown up in both groups. Choice "Other studies have examined the effects of organic food on the risk of developing both diseases, but not on the effects of genetically modified food." can be eliminated as well since whether other studies have looked at this issue doesn't impact whether or not the conclusion is correct.
← Didn't Know|Knew It →
Many people believe that soccer players are the most well-known athletes on the planet, citing the fact that professional soccer is televised in more countries than any other sport. This belief is misplaced, however: according to a name recognition survey, Fabricio, the star of professional soccer's AC Camarillo, is less recognized than the best players on 20 different professional basketball teams.
Which of the following most strengthens the conclusion drawn above?
Many people believe that soccer players are the most well-known athletes on the planet, citing the fact that professional soccer is televised in more countries than any other sport. This belief is misplaced, however: according to a name recognition survey, Fabricio, the star of professional soccer's AC Camarillo, is less recognized than the best players on 20 different professional basketball teams.
Which of the following most strengthens the conclusion drawn above?
Tap to reveal answer
If you look for the logical flaw in the argument of this Strengthen question, you should see that it is one of generalization. Based on exactly one data point - a particular soccer star is less famous than 20 different basketball players - the argument draws the general conclusion that soccer players are not the most well-known athletes in the world. But Fabricio is only one player: if this were a Strengthen question you would want to show that he is an outlier on the less-famous side (meaning that most players are far more famous than he is, so this one data point is less relevant). But since this is a Weaken question, you want to show that Fabricio is one of the most famous soccer players, so that all other players are even less famous.
Choice "Fabricio is the most well-known soccer player in the world." does exactly that, and is therefore correct: if Fabricio is the most famous soccer player, and he's less famous than 20 basketball players, then the conclusion that soccer players are not the most famous athletes is a lot more likely - Fabricio isn't the one not-famous outlier while all the others are very famous. "Fabricio is the most well-known soccer player in the world." is correct.
Among the other answer choices: choice "AC Camarillo has won its league's championship the past three consecutive seasons." doesn't link Fabricio or AC Camarillo to being well-known. If AC Camarillo is a champion in a lesser-known league, then Fabricio isn't necessarily a particularly well-known player; if the team is the champion of an extremely popular league, then it's more likely that he's among the most well-known (but you still don't know for sure).
Choice "Fabricio is less well-known than the stars of several other professional soccer teams." weakens the argument by going the opposite direction of "Fabricio is the most well-known soccer player in the world." and saying that Fabricio isn't among the most famous players in the world. Choice "The most well-known basketball players are not always the best players on their teams." would slightly strengthen the argument if it were specific to the 20 players more famous than Fabricio, as then there would be even more basketball players who are more famous than Fabricio. But since it's a generic "the most famous players are not always the best on their teams" it doesn't add any more players more famous than Fabricio and therefore has no direct bearing on the argument. And choice "No professional basketball players are also professional soccer players." is similarly generic and therefore doesn't add any new data to further the argument (if it were that the most famous basketball players ARE also soccer players then it would have a direct bearing, but as written it does not).
If you look for the logical flaw in the argument of this Strengthen question, you should see that it is one of generalization. Based on exactly one data point - a particular soccer star is less famous than 20 different basketball players - the argument draws the general conclusion that soccer players are not the most well-known athletes in the world. But Fabricio is only one player: if this were a Strengthen question you would want to show that he is an outlier on the less-famous side (meaning that most players are far more famous than he is, so this one data point is less relevant). But since this is a Weaken question, you want to show that Fabricio is one of the most famous soccer players, so that all other players are even less famous.
Choice "Fabricio is the most well-known soccer player in the world." does exactly that, and is therefore correct: if Fabricio is the most famous soccer player, and he's less famous than 20 basketball players, then the conclusion that soccer players are not the most famous athletes is a lot more likely - Fabricio isn't the one not-famous outlier while all the others are very famous. "Fabricio is the most well-known soccer player in the world." is correct.
Among the other answer choices: choice "AC Camarillo has won its league's championship the past three consecutive seasons." doesn't link Fabricio or AC Camarillo to being well-known. If AC Camarillo is a champion in a lesser-known league, then Fabricio isn't necessarily a particularly well-known player; if the team is the champion of an extremely popular league, then it's more likely that he's among the most well-known (but you still don't know for sure).
Choice "Fabricio is less well-known than the stars of several other professional soccer teams." weakens the argument by going the opposite direction of "Fabricio is the most well-known soccer player in the world." and saying that Fabricio isn't among the most famous players in the world. Choice "The most well-known basketball players are not always the best players on their teams." would slightly strengthen the argument if it were specific to the 20 players more famous than Fabricio, as then there would be even more basketball players who are more famous than Fabricio. But since it's a generic "the most famous players are not always the best on their teams" it doesn't add any more players more famous than Fabricio and therefore has no direct bearing on the argument. And choice "No professional basketball players are also professional soccer players." is similarly generic and therefore doesn't add any new data to further the argument (if it were that the most famous basketball players ARE also soccer players then it would have a direct bearing, but as written it does not).
← Didn't Know|Knew It →