GMAT Verbal Quiz: Identify Premises And Conclusions

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Identify Premises And Conclusions, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for GMAT Verbal.

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

Question 1

1. The transit authority recently added ten new buses to the fleet.
2. The city's public buses were consistently running behind schedule before the change.
3. Adding buses is an effective way to solve the city's punctuality problem. (correct answer)
4. On-time performance has improved by 20 percent since the new buses have been in service.

Explanation: When you encounter a question asking for the "main conclusion" of an argument, you need to identify the primary claim the author is trying to prove—the ultimate point they want you to accept based on their evidence. The correct answer is C because "Adding buses is an effective way to solve the city's punctuality problem" represents the author's final judgment. This statement goes beyond simply reporting what happened and makes a broader claim about the effectiveness of this solution. The entire argument builds toward supporting this conclusion: the author presents the bus problem, describes the intervention, reports the positive results, and then draws this general conclusion about the strategy's effectiveness. Let's examine why the other options function as support rather than conclusions. Option A is simply a factual statement about what the transit authority did—it's part of the evidence, not the conclusion. Option B describes the initial problem that motivated the action; it's background information that sets up the argument. Option D reports the measured improvement, which serves as crucial evidence supporting the conclusion, but it's still just data rather than the author's interpretive claim about what that data means. Notice how the word "Therefore" signals the conclusion in the passage. This transition word indicates that everything before it serves as premises leading to the final claim. Strategy tip: Look for conclusion indicators like "therefore," "thus," "consequently," or "so." The main conclusion is typically the statement that answers "So what?" about all the evidence presented—it's the author's interpretation or judgment, not just the facts.

Question 2

1. Since coastal wetlands absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide, preserving these wetlands will significantly slow the rise of atmospheric carbon levels.
2. The government should provide tax incentives to landowners who protect coastal wetlands on their properties. (correct answer)
3. Coastal wetlands absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide.
4. Atmospheric carbon levels are rising.

Explanation: When you encounter a question asking for an author's conclusion, you need to identify the main claim the author wants you to accept—the point they're ultimately trying to prove, not the evidence they use to support it. In this argument, the activist presents a chain of reasoning: coastal wetlands absorb carbon dioxide, so preserving them will slow atmospheric carbon rise, and therefore the government should provide tax incentives. The word "therefore" is your key signal—it introduces the final claim that everything else is building toward. The activist isn't just making an observation about wetlands; they're advocating for a specific policy action based on their reasoning about environmental benefits. Choice B correctly identifies this conclusion. This is what the activist ultimately wants to convince you of—that the government should take this specific action. Choice A presents the intermediate reasoning step, not the final conclusion. While this statement connects wetland preservation to carbon benefits, it serves as support for the main point rather than being the main point itself. Choice C states a factual premise about wetland function. This is foundational evidence the activist uses, but it's not what they're trying to prove—they assume this as a given. Choice D identifies an implied assumption about rising carbon levels, but this isn't even explicitly stated in the passage and certainly isn't the activist's main point. Remember: conclusions often follow signal words like "therefore," "thus," "consequently," or "so." Look for the claim that represents the author's ultimate goal—what they want their audience to believe or do.

Question 3

1. The newly discovered painting bears the distinctive brushwork and color palette found in Clara Voss's authenticated works.
2. Archival records place Voss in the region at the time the piece was likely created.
3. The painting is almost certainly an authentic Voss. (correct answer)
4. The piece was likely created at a time when Voss was in the region.

Explanation: When you encounter a question asking you to identify the conclusion in an argument, you're looking for the main claim the author is trying to prove—the statement that everything else supports. In this argument structure, the art critic presents two pieces of evidence and then draws a final judgment. The first sentence establishes that the painting has Voss's distinctive style elements. The second sentence (introduced by "Moreover") adds supporting evidence about Voss's location. Then comes the key transition word "Hence," which signals that what follows is the conclusion—the critic's ultimate claim based on the evidence presented. Choice C is correct because "The painting is almost certainly an authentic Voss" represents the critic's final determination. This is what the critic wants you to believe, supported by the brushwork evidence and archival records. Choice A is wrong because it's evidence, not a conclusion. The distinctive brushwork serves as support for the main claim rather than being the claim itself. Choice B is also evidence—the archival records about Voss's location provide additional support but aren't the argument's endpoint. Choice D is wrong because this statement doesn't even appear in the passage; it's a distorted version of choice B that reverses the logical relationship. Remember to look for conclusion indicators like "hence," "therefore," "thus," and "consequently." These signal words often point directly to an argument's main claim, helping you distinguish between evidence and conclusion in complex reasoning passages.

Question 4

1. Any e-bike company that expands capacity can expect higher profits within a year.
2. ZapRide expanded its factory last year and this year reported record profits. (correct answer)
3. Demand for e-bikes has surged worldwide.
4. Some manufacturers remain hesitant to expand despite rising demand.

Explanation: When you encounter argument structure questions, you need to identify the building blocks of the reasoning. Arguments consist of premises (supporting evidence) and conclusions (what the author wants to prove). The market analyst's argument follows this structure: The analyst observes that e-bike demand has surged and manufacturers are expanding capacity. Then they point to ZapRide as a specific example—ZapRide expanded its factory last year and reported record profits this year. Finally, they conclude that any e-bike company expanding capacity can expect higher profits within a year. Choice B is correct because "ZapRide expanded its factory last year and this year reported record profits" serves as the key evidence supporting the conclusion. This concrete example of one company's success after expansion is what the analyst uses to justify the broader claim about all e-bike companies. Choice A is wrong because this statement is the conclusion, not a premise. This is what the analyst is trying to prove, not evidence supporting their argument. Choice C is incorrect because while this provides background context about market conditions, it doesn't directly support the specific claim that expansion leads to higher profits. It explains why companies might expand, but not why expansion guarantees success. Choice D is wrong because this statement doesn't even appear in the passage. The analyst mentions that "several manufacturers" increased capacity but says nothing about hesitant companies. Remember: premises provide evidence or reasons, while conclusions are what those reasons are meant to prove. Look for words like "therefore," "thus," and "so" to identify conclusions, then work backward to find the supporting premises.

Question 5

1. Some of Hadrian's letters may have been lost over time.
2. Apollodorus could not have served as Hadrian's chief architect.
3. Popular belief holds that Apollodorus was Hadrian's chief architect.
4. Surviving building plans from Hadrian's reign are signed by other architects. (correct answer)

Explanation: Questions asking what is "cited as a premise" test your ability to identify the evidence an argument uses, not its conclusion or outside information. You need to find what the historian actually states as support for their reasoning. The historian's argument follows a clear structure: two pieces of evidence lead to a conclusion. The evidence is (1) no letters by Hadrian mention Apollodorus by name, and (2) surviving building plans from Hadrian's reign are signed by other architects. From these premises, the historian concludes that Apollodorus could not have been Hadrian's chief architect. Choice D directly quotes one of these stated premises. The historian explicitly presents this as evidence supporting the conclusion, making it a premise by definition. Choice A suggests some letters may have been lost, but the historian never mentions this possibility. This represents outside information that might weaken the argument, but it's not cited as a premise. Choice B restates the historian's conclusion, not a premise. The conclusion is what the premises are meant to support, not evidence itself. Choice C about popular belief is referenced in the passage ("contrary to popular belief"), but it's presented as background context, not as evidence supporting the historian's position. Remember that premise-identification questions focus on what's explicitly stated as support within the argument. Look for the evidence the author uses to build their case, not the conclusion they reach or information from outside the passage. The premises are the building blocks; the conclusion is what they construct.

Question 6

1. Many firms already use quarterly reviews.
2. Instituting monthly performance reviews will raise the firm's overall productivity.
3. Some employees dread performance reviews and find them stressful.
4. Employees who receive regular feedback show a 15-percent increase in productivity. (correct answer)

Explanation: When you encounter questions about argument structure, you need to distinguish between the conclusion (what the author is trying to prove) and the premises (the evidence used to support that conclusion). The key is identifying which statement serves as the foundation for the argument. In this argument, the corporate trainer presents a logical flow: first establishing a general principle about feedback and productivity, then drawing a specific conclusion about monthly reviews. The premise is the foundational claim that "employees who receive regular feedback show a 15-percent increase in productivity." This statistic serves as the evidence that supposedly supports implementing monthly reviews. Answer choice D correctly identifies this foundational evidence. The trainer uses this 15-percent productivity increase as the basis for recommending monthly performance reviews. Let's examine why the other options fail: A) introduces information about quarterly reviews that doesn't appear anywhere in the passage. B) restates the conclusion rather than identifying the premise—this is a common trap since students sometimes confuse what the argument is trying to prove with what evidence supports it. C) mentions employee stress, which isn't discussed in this particular argument. The distinction between B and D is crucial: B represents the trainer's conclusion (the claim being argued), while D represents the premise (the evidence supporting that claim). Strategy tip: In argument structure questions, always ask yourself "What evidence is the author using?" versus "What is the author trying to convince me of?" The premise provides the evidence; the conclusion is what they want you to believe based on that evidence.

Question 7

1. Software updates for older smartphones will cease next year.
2. Users of older smartphones will no longer receive security patches.
3. Anyone concerned about data security should replace an older smartphone before the updates stop. (correct answer)
4. Some users are unaware that security patches will cease.

Explanation: When you encounter a question asking for an author's conclusion, you need to identify the main claim the author is trying to persuade you to accept. The conclusion is what the author wants you to believe, while other statements serve as premises (evidence or reasons) supporting that conclusion. In this passage, the tech columnist presents a logical argument with a clear structure. The columnist establishes two facts: software updates will cease next year, and users won't receive security patches as a result. These facts build toward the main point—that people concerned about data security should replace their older smartphones before updates stop. This recommendation is what the columnist ultimately wants readers to accept and act upon. Choice C correctly identifies this conclusion. It's the statement that everything else in the passage supports and the action the columnist advocates. Choice A represents a factual premise rather than a conclusion. This statement about software updates ceasing provides background information that supports the argument but isn't the main point the columnist is making. Choice B is also a premise—a consequence that flows from the fact in choice A. While important to the argument's logic, it serves as evidence for the conclusion rather than being the conclusion itself. Choice D doesn't appear anywhere in the passage. The columnist never mentions what users do or don't know about the situation. Strategy tip: Look for recommendation language like "should," "ought to," or "must" when identifying conclusions in GMAT arguments. These signal words often introduce the author's main claim rather than supporting evidence.

Question 8

1. Downtown retailers have requested municipal assistance.
2. Converting the Central Street parking lot into a plaza will stimulate downtown commerce.
3. Cities that converted downtown parking lots into pedestrian plazas observed increased foot traffic and retail sales. (correct answer)
4. Some commuters rely on the Central Street lot for convenient parking.

Explanation: When you encounter argument structure questions, you need to identify the building blocks of reasoning: premises (supporting evidence) and conclusions (what the author wants you to believe). In this argument, the urban planner follows a classic pattern: citing evidence from similar situations to support a prediction. The planner observes that "cities that converted downtown parking lots into pedestrian plazas observed increased foot traffic and retail sales," then uses this evidence to conclude that "converting the Central Street parking lot into a plaza will stimulate downtown commerce." The correct answer is C because it provides the factual evidence that supports the planner's conclusion. This statement about other cities' experiences serves as the foundation for the argument—without this premise, the planner would have no basis for the prediction about Central Street. Looking at the wrong answers: A introduces information not mentioned in the passage about retailer requests. B restates the conclusion, not a premise—this is what the planner is trying to prove, not evidence supporting the argument. D mentions commuter parking needs, which isn't discussed in the given argument and doesn't support the planner's reasoning. The key trap here is confusing premises with conclusions. Remember that premises provide support or evidence, while conclusions are what the author wants you to accept based on that evidence. When analyzing arguments, ask yourself: "What facts or evidence does the author present?" versus "What is the author trying to convince me of?" This distinction will help you identify argument components accurately on similar GMAT questions.

Question 9

1. They describe a tangential finding unrelated to retention.
2. They constitute the main conclusion of the argument.
3. They provide a counterargument that the counselor seeks to refute.
4. They serve as premises supporting the predicted effect of peer tutoring. (correct answer)

Explanation: When analyzing argument structure questions, you need to identify how each component functions within the logical framework. Look for the role each piece of evidence plays in supporting the conclusion. The counselor's argument follows a classic structure: evidence → conclusion → prediction. The studies showing that peer-tutoring participants have higher retention rates serve as the foundational evidence. This evidence directly supports the counselor's conclusion that implementing peer tutoring will reduce dropout rates at their specific college. The studies provide the empirical basis for believing the proposed intervention will work. Choice D correctly identifies this function—the studies are premises (evidence) that support the counselor's predicted outcome about peer tutoring's effectiveness. Choice A is wrong because the studies are highly relevant, not tangential—they directly relate to student retention, which is the core issue. Choice B misidentifies the argument's structure; the studies are evidence, while the main conclusion is the counselor's prediction about reducing dropout rates at their college. Choice C completely misreads the argument's direction—the counselor uses these studies as support, not as opposition to refute. The key trap here is confusing evidence with conclusion. The studies aren't what the counselor is trying to prove (they already happened); rather, they're what the counselor uses to justify their prediction about implementing peer tutoring. Strategy tip: In argument structure questions, always map out "What happened?" (evidence) versus "What does the author predict will happen?" (conclusion). The studies describe past results, making them premises supporting future predictions.

Question 10

1. Municipalities that implemented no-idling zones around schools measured lower concentrations of vehicle emissions in nearby classrooms.
2. If our city establishes a similar no-idling policy, children's exposure to harmful exhaust will decrease. (correct answer)
3. Vehicle emissions contain pollutants that can harm children's health.
4. Parents often leave their engines running while waiting for children after school.

Explanation: When you encounter a question asking you to identify an argument's conclusion, you need to distinguish between evidence and the main claim being made. The conclusion is what the author is trying to prove or persuade you to accept, while premises provide the supporting evidence. In this passage, the policy analyst presents a clear logical structure. The first sentence describes what happened in other municipalities—they implemented no-idling zones and measured lower vehicle emissions in classrooms. This serves as evidence or a premise. The analyst then uses this evidence to make a prediction about what would happen if their own city adopted a similar policy. Answer choice B is correct because it represents the analyst's main claim: "If our city establishes a similar no-idling policy, children's exposure to harmful exhaust will decrease." This is what the analyst wants you to believe, supported by the evidence from other municipalities. Answer A is incorrect because it's the premise—the evidence used to support the conclusion, not the conclusion itself. Answer C is wrong because this statement doesn't appear anywhere in the passage; while it might be true, it's not part of this particular argument. Answer D is also incorrect because it's not mentioned in the passage and doesn't represent any claim the analyst is making. Look for signal words like "consequently," "therefore," or "if...then" statements to help identify conclusions. The conclusion often comes after evidence is presented and frequently indicates what should happen based on that evidence.

Question 11

1. A digression unrelated to the training recommendation
2. The conclusion that the psychologist draws
3. Evidence that contradicts the psychologist's main point
4. A premise supporting the recommendation to coaches (correct answer)

Explanation: When you encounter questions asking about the role of a statement in an argument, you need to identify the argument's structure: what's the conclusion, and what supports it? The sports psychologist's argument follows a clear pattern: observation → recommendation. The psychologist observes that "athletes who visualize successful performance before competition show improved accuracy and consistency," then concludes that "coaches should incorporate visualization techniques into regular training sessions." The observation about visualization's benefits directly supports the recommendation to coaches. This makes the observation a premise - evidence used to support the main conclusion. Answer choice D correctly identifies this relationship. Let's examine why the other options miss the mark. Choice A incorrectly calls the observation a "digression." Far from being unrelated, the visualization data directly connects to and justifies the training recommendation. Choice B misidentifies the observation as the conclusion, but the psychologist's main point is the recommendation to coaches, not the description of visualization's effects. Choice C suggests the observation contradicts the main point, which is backwards - the positive effects of visualization actually strengthen the argument for incorporating it into training. Remember that GMAT arguments typically follow logical patterns where evidence leads to conclusions. When analyzing argument structure, ask yourself: "What is the author trying to convince me of?" (that's usually the conclusion) and "What reasons does the author give?" (those are the premises). This systematic approach will help you quickly identify how different parts of an argument function.

Question 12

1. The rapid adoption of the printing press in Europe coincided with rising literacy rates.
2. Widespread access to printed materials spurred an increase in literacy. (correct answer)
3. Literacy rates in Europe were low before the advent of the printing press.
4. The printing press was invented in the mid-15th century.

Explanation: When analyzing arguments in verbal reasoning, you need to distinguish between premises (evidence) and conclusions (what the author is trying to prove). The conclusion is the main claim the author wants you to accept based on the evidence provided. In this argument, the historian presents a fact as evidence: the printing press's rapid adoption coincided with rising literacy rates. This timing correlation serves as the foundation for the historian's reasoning. The key phrase "This suggests that..." signals the transition from evidence to conclusion. What follows is the historian's interpretation of what this evidence means: widespread access to printed materials spurred increased literacy. Answer choice B correctly identifies this conclusion. The historian isn't just stating facts about timing—they're making a causal claim about how printed materials drove literacy growth. Choice A is incorrect because it identifies the premise, not the conclusion. This is the evidence the historian uses to support their argument, not what they're trying to prove. Choice C is wrong because the historian never discusses pre-printing press literacy levels—this makes an assumption beyond what's stated. Choice D is also incorrect as the invention date isn't mentioned anywhere in the passage. Strategy tip: Look for signal words like "suggests," "therefore," "thus," or "indicates" to identify conclusions. The conclusion is what the author wants to convince you is true, while premises are the supporting evidence. Don't confuse the facts presented as evidence with the argument's main point.

Question 13

1. Serialized novels were particularly popular in the 19th century among educated readers.
2. Authors who wish to maintain reader interest should structure installments to conclude with suspense.
3. Readers of serialized novels reported higher engagement when each installment ended with a cliffhanger. (correct answer)
4. Some readers prefer to wait until a series is complete before starting to read it.

Explanation: When you encounter questions about identifying premises and conclusions in logical reasoning, focus on the argument's structure. The premise provides the evidence or support, while the conclusion states what the author wants you to believe based on that evidence. In this argument, the scholar presents a piece of evidence and then draws a recommendation from it. The premise is the foundational fact: "Readers of serialized novels reported higher engagement when each installment ended with a cliffhanger." This is the observed data that supports everything else in the argument. From this evidence, the scholar concludes that authors should use cliffhangers to maintain reader interest. Looking at the wrong answers: Choice A introduces information about 19th-century readers that isn't mentioned anywhere in the passage. Choice B is actually the conclusion of the argument—it's what the scholar recommends based on the premise, not the supporting evidence itself. Choice D mentions reader preferences about waiting for complete series, which is entirely outside the scope of this argument about cliffhangers and engagement. The correct answer is C because it identifies the factual observation that serves as the foundation for the scholar's recommendation. Strategy tip: To distinguish premises from conclusions, look for the logical flow. Ask yourself: "What evidence does the author provide?" (premise) and "What does the author want me to believe based on that evidence?" (conclusion). Signal words like "therefore" often introduce conclusions, while the premise typically appears before such indicators.

Question 14

1. After the reintroduction of wolves, the deer population in Greywood Forest declined.
2. Reintroducing apex predators can restore ecological balance in damaged ecosystems. (correct answer)
3. Overbrowsed vegetation regrew throughout Greywood Forest after wolf reintroduction.
4. Greywood Forest had previously suffered from an overabundant deer population.

Explanation: When you encounter conclusion questions in GMAT Critical Reasoning, you need to identify the main claim the author is trying to prove, not just describe what happened. Look for the author's primary assertion—what they want you to believe based on their evidence. The ecologist presents a specific case study (wolves in Greywood Forest) to support a broader principle. The word "Thus" signals the conclusion: "reintroducing apex predators can restore ecological balance." This is the main claim the ecologist wants to establish using the Greywood Forest example as evidence. Choice A describes a factual observation about deer population decline, but this serves as evidence, not the conclusion. The ecologist uses this fact to support their broader argument. Choice C similarly presents evidence—the vegetation regrowth that resulted from fewer deer. This is another piece of supporting data, not the main claim. Choice D makes an inference about the forest's past condition, but the ecologist never explicitly states this, and it's not the point they're trying to prove. Choice B correctly identifies the conclusion because it captures the ecologist's main argument: that apex predator reintroduction (in general, not just wolves specifically) can restore ecological balance. The Greywood Forest case is evidence supporting this broader principle. Strategy tip: In conclusion questions, distinguish between evidence (specific facts and observations) and the main claim (what those facts are meant to prove). Signal words like "thus," "therefore," and "so" often introduce conclusions, while specific examples typically serve as supporting evidence.

Question 15

1. Market volatility has increased significantly in recent years due to global uncertainty.
2. Investors seeking stable returns should diversify their holdings broadly across multiple sectors.
3. Some investors prefer the possibility of high short-term gains over stability.
4. Historical data indicate that diversified portfolios experience less volatility than portfolios of few stocks. (correct answer)

Explanation: When tackling argument structure questions, you need to distinguish between premises (evidence or support) and conclusions (what the author is trying to prove). The premise provides the foundation for the argument, while the conclusion is what the author wants you to accept based on that foundation. In this argument, the professor presents historical data as evidence and then draws a recommendation from it. The premise is the factual claim that serves as support: "Historical data indicate that diversified portfolios experience less volatility than portfolios composed of only a few stocks." This is the evidence the professor uses to justify the conclusion that investors should diversify broadly. Option D correctly identifies this premise by restating it almost verbatim. This is the foundational claim that makes the rest of the argument possible. Option A introduces information about recent market volatility that doesn't appear anywhere in the passage. This is completely irrelevant to the professor's argument. Option B restates the conclusion, not the premise—it's what the professor is trying to convince you to do, based on the historical data. Option C mentions investor preferences for high gains, which is neither stated nor implied in the passage and doesn't function as support for the professor's recommendation. Remember that premises answer "why should I believe this?" while conclusions answer "what should I believe?" Look for signal words like "because," "since," or "data indicate" to spot premises, and "therefore," "should," or "must" to identify conclusions. The premise always provides the logical foundation for everything else.

Question 16

1. Languages with complex verb tenses can express subtle temporal relationships more precisely.
2. Speakers of languages with complex verb tenses may find it easier to convey nuanced timelines. (correct answer)
3. Some languages lack distinct future tense markers.
4. Temporal relationships are important for accurate storytelling.

Explanation: When tackling GMAT argument analysis questions, you need to distinguish between premises (supporting evidence) and conclusions (what the author wants you to believe). Look for indicator words like "consequently," "therefore," or "thus" that often signal conclusions. In this argument, the linguist presents a logical chain: first establishing that complex verb tenses allow precise expression of temporal relationships, then using "consequently" to introduce what follows from this fact. The conclusion is what the author derives from the evidence—that speakers of such languages may find it easier to convey nuanced timelines. Choice B correctly identifies this conclusion. It's what the linguist wants us to accept based on the premise about complex verb tenses. Choice A is the premise, not the conclusion. This statement provides the foundational evidence that supports the argument's main point. Many students confuse premises with conclusions because premises often contain important information, but they serve as support rather than the argument's destination. Choice C introduces information not mentioned anywhere in the passage. The argument doesn't discuss languages lacking future tense markers. Choice D, while potentially related to the topic, doesn't appear in the passage at all. The linguist doesn't mention storytelling or its accuracy requirements. Strategy tip: When identifying conclusions in GMAT arguments, follow the logical flow. Ask yourself: "What is the author trying to convince me of?" The conclusion answers this question, while premises provide the reasoning. Transitional words like "consequently" are your roadmap to the conclusion.

Question 17

1. Rapid entrepreneurial growth benefits a developing nation's overall economy.
2. Allocating stimulus funds to broadband will be politically popular in most developing nations.
3. Countries that invested in broadband infrastructure experienced higher rates of new-business formation. (correct answer)
4. Some developing nations already possess adequate broadband coverage in urban centers.

Explanation: When you encounter questions asking what a recommendation "depends on" as a supporting premise, you're looking for an unstated assumption that must be true for the argument to work. The economist argues that developing nations should invest in broadband because countries that did so experienced higher new-business formation rates. The correct answer is C because it identifies the crucial factual assumption underlying the entire argument. The economist's reasoning chain is: (1) countries that invested in broadband had higher new-business formation, (2) therefore developing nations should invest in broadband for entrepreneurial growth. But notice that the economist never explicitly states that the broadband investment actually caused or correlated with the business formation—this connection is assumed. Without this premise being true, the recommendation collapses entirely. Choice A addresses whether entrepreneurial growth benefits the economy, but this goes beyond what the argument requires. The economist only needs new-business formation to be desirable for developing nations, not necessarily beneficial to the entire economy. Choice B focuses on political popularity, which is irrelevant to whether the policy would be effective. Choice D mentions existing urban broadband coverage, but this doesn't affect whether additional investment would be beneficial. The key strategy here is distinguishing between what strengthens an argument versus what the argument fundamentally depends upon. Supporting premises are foundational assumptions that, if false, would completely undermine the reasoning. Always ask yourself: "If this weren't true, would the argument still make sense?" For choice C, the answer is clearly no.

Question 18

1. Some coral species are more resilient than others to temperature changes.
2. Limiting global warming will reduce the frequency of coral bleaching.
3. Coral reefs provide critical habitats for many marine species.
4. Coral bleaching events correlate with prolonged rises in sea-surface temperatures. (correct answer)

Explanation: When analyzing argument structure questions, you need to distinguish between premises (supporting evidence) and conclusions (what the author is trying to prove). The premise provides the foundation for the argument, while the conclusion is what follows from that evidence. In this argument, the marine biologist presents a fact about coral bleaching and then draws a conclusion from it. The statement "Coral bleaching events correlate with prolonged rises in sea-surface temperatures" serves as the foundational evidence—this is the premise. From this correlation, the biologist concludes that "limiting global warming will reduce the frequency of coral bleaching." The argument flows from the observed relationship (premise) to a prediction about future outcomes (conclusion). Choice D correctly identifies the premise because it states the observed correlation that supports the biologist's reasoning. Choice A introduces information about coral resilience that isn't mentioned in the passage—this is outside scope. Choice B is actually the conclusion of the argument, not the premise; it's what the biologist is trying to prove based on the temperature correlation. Choice C discusses the ecological importance of coral reefs, which is relevant to why we might care about coral bleaching but isn't part of the logical structure of this specific argument. Strategy tip: In argument structure questions, look for signal words and logical flow. Premises often present facts, studies, or observations, while conclusions frequently follow words like "thus," "therefore," or "so." Always ask yourself: what evidence is being used to support what claim?

Question 19

1. It is background information offered without logical relevance.
2. It is the conclusion drawn by the meteorologist.
3. It is a counterexample that undermines the argument.
4. It is a premise supporting the recommendation to farmers. (correct answer)

Explanation: When analyzing argument structure questions, you need to identify how each piece of information functions within the logical framework. Look for premises (evidence), conclusions (claims being made), and recommendations (what should be done). The meteorologist presents a clear logical chain: sudden drop in barometric pressure → indicates approaching storm → therefore farmers should secure equipment. The barometric pressure drop serves as evidence that supports the ultimate recommendation. It's not just mentioned in passing—it's the foundational observation that justifies the entire advice to farmers. Answer D correctly identifies this role. The pressure drop is a premise that supports the recommendation because it provides the meteorological evidence needed to justify why farmers should take immediate action. Answer A is wrong because the pressure drop isn't irrelevant background information—it's central to the argument's logic. Without this observation, there would be no basis for the recommendation. Answer B misidentifies the conclusion. The meteorologist's main conclusion is the recommendation that "farmers should secure loose equipment," not the observation about pressure. The pressure drop is presented as a fact, not as something being concluded. Answer C is incorrect because the pressure drop doesn't undermine anything—it actually strengthens the case for the recommendation by providing supporting evidence. Remember that in argument analysis, premises provide support while conclusions are what's being supported. The key question is always: "What evidence leads to what claim?" Here, the meteorological observation leads to practical advice, making it a supporting premise.

Question 20

1. ColdAway's new formulation will bring faster symptom relief.
2. Patients prefer tablets that work rapidly.
3. The new tablets dissolve completely within five minutes. (correct answer)
4. Some herbal extracts can cause minor stomach upset in sensitive users.

Explanation: When analyzing argument structure on the GMAT, you need to distinguish between premises (supporting evidence) and conclusions (what the author claims). The chemist concludes that patients will experience faster symptom relief with the new formulation, and you're looking for evidence that supports this claim. The chemist's reasoning flows logically: the new formulation contains an herbal extract that enhances absorption, and unlike the old version, these tablets dissolve completely within five minutes. This faster dissolution is presented as evidence supporting the conclusion about quicker relief. Choice C directly states this premise: "The new tablets dissolve completely within five minutes." Choice A restates the conclusion rather than providing a supporting premise. The question asks what supports the chemist's conclusion, not what the conclusion itself is. Choice B introduces patient preferences, which is irrelevant to whether the new formulation actually works faster—preferences don't determine effectiveness. Choice D mentions potential side effects, which neither supports nor relates to the claim about faster symptom relief. Notice how the chemist uses "Unlike the previous version" to highlight the contrast in dissolution time, positioning this as key evidence. The herbal extract enhancing absorption and the five-minute dissolution time work together as premises supporting the speed claim. On GMAT argument questions, always map out the logical flow first: identify the conclusion, then look for the evidence supporting it. Premises provide reasons why the conclusion should be true, while the conclusion is what the author wants you to believe.