GMAT Verbal Quiz: Weaken Arguments

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Weaken Arguments, 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. Many individuals who leave their electronic devices in another room at night still keep other sources of artificial light, such as digital alarm clocks, within arm's reach of the bed.
2. People who bring smartphones into the bedroom are more likely than those who do not to have jobs that require them to respond to late-night messages and thus chronically sleep fewer hours. (correct answer)
3. The twice-as-likely figure reported by the study was calculated by combining results from adults of widely different age groups and occupations.
4. Most participants in the study who reported daytime fatigue also reported consuming caffeinated beverages late in the evening.

Explanation: When you encounter a "weaken the argument" question, look for answer choices that either challenge the evidence or reveal problems with the reasoning that connects evidence to conclusion. The Institute's argument follows this logic: Study shows people with devices nearby report more fatigue → Therefore, moving devices away will reduce fatigue. This assumes the devices themselves cause the fatigue, but what if there's another explanation? Choice B provides that alternative explanation by revealing a confounding variable. If people who bring phones to bed do so because their jobs require late-night responses, then they're sleeping fewer hours overall. This means their fatigue likely stems from sleep deprivation, not device proximity. Moving the phone away won't help if they still need to respond to work messages and lose sleep. This directly undermines the recommendation's effectiveness. Choice A is irrelevant because digital clocks emit much less disruptive light than smartphones and don't involve the same behavioral patterns. Choice C attacks how the data was grouped, but this doesn't change the fundamental relationship observed or challenge whether the recommendation would work. Choice D introduces caffeine as a factor, but this doesn't explain why device proximity specifically correlates with fatigue—caffeine consumption could affect both groups equally. Remember: The strongest way to weaken a causal argument is to show that the supposed cause and effect actually share a common underlying cause. Look for answer choices that reveal hidden variables that could explain the observed correlation without supporting the proposed solution.

Question 2

1. Public transit fares in Delwick were lowered the same day the surcharge took effect, making bus and subway rides significantly cheaper than before.
2. Many downtown employers reimbursed their employees for the new surcharge so that workers would not be discouraged from arriving at the usual time. (correct answer)
3. Carpooling into downtown is exempt from the surcharge if the vehicle carries at least three passengers during the restricted hours.
4. Traffic congestion in Delwick is typically much lighter in the afternoon than in the morning, even without any surcharges in effect.

Explanation: When you encounter questions that ask what "casts doubt" on a claim, you're looking for evidence that directly undermines the proposed cause-and-effect relationship. Here, officials claim the surcharge will reduce congestion because commuters will switch to public transit. The correct answer is B because it identifies a factor that would prevent the intended behavioral change. If employers reimburse employees for the surcharge, then workers face no financial incentive to abandon their cars. The surcharge becomes meaningless to them personally, so they'll continue driving as before. This directly contradicts the officials' assumption that financial pressure will drive the switch to public transit. Let's examine why the other options don't cast doubt: A actually strengthens the officials' claim by making public transit more attractive relative to driving. C doesn't undermine the policy since carpooling still reduces the number of vehicles on the road, supporting the congestion-reduction goal. D is irrelevant because it discusses afternoon traffic patterns, while the policy specifically targets morning rush hour. The key strategy here is to identify what assumption underlies the officials' reasoning. They assume people will respond to financial incentives by changing behavior. Any answer choice that eliminates or neutralizes those incentives will cast doubt on their claim. Watch for similar patterns in other GMAT questions where policies or interventions depend on predicted human responses—the correct answer often reveals why people might not behave as expected.

Question 3

1. The laboratory trial measured self-reported hunger but did not track the total calories that subjects consumed over the rest of the day. (correct answer)
2. Some brands of dark chocolate contain higher levels of antioxidants than others, depending on processing methods.
3. Participants in the trial said they preferred the taste of milk chocolate to that of dark chocolate.
4. Researchers administered the chocolate to subjects exactly two hours after breakfast, a time when most subjects normally feel only moderately hungry.

Explanation: When you encounter a question asking what would "undermine" or "weaken" an argument, you need to identify what would make the conclusion less credible. Here, the magazine concludes that dark chocolate aids weight loss because it curbs appetite, based on subjects reporting less hunger 30 minutes after eating chocolate. The correct answer is A because it exposes a critical gap in the evidence. The study only measured how hungry people felt shortly after eating chocolate, but weight loss depends on actual calorie consumption over time. If the chocolate-eating subjects ended up consuming the same or more total calories throughout the day despite feeling less hungry initially, then the chocolate wouldn't actually aid weight loss. This directly challenges the connection between reduced hunger feelings and the claimed weight loss benefit. Let's examine why the other choices don't undermine the argument as effectively. Choice B about antioxidant levels in different chocolate brands is irrelevant to the appetite/weight loss claim. Choice C about taste preferences doesn't affect whether dark chocolate reduces hunger or aids weight loss. Choice D about the timing of chocolate administration (two hours after breakfast) doesn't weaken the argument—it's simply describing the experimental conditions without suggesting any flaw. Strategy tip: In Critical Reasoning questions that ask you to weaken an argument, look for answer choices that break the logical connection between the evidence and the conclusion. Often, the best answer reveals what the study didn't measure that would be necessary to support the conclusion.

Question 4

1. Refrigerators account for only a fraction of a typical household's total electricity consumption, with heating, cooling, and lighting together consuming far more power. (correct answer)
2. Utility companies often offer rebates to customers who purchase energy-efficient appliances, thereby shortening the payback period on such purchases.
3. Some energy-efficient refrigerators are significantly more expensive to purchase than comparable standard models.
4. The 40 percent electricity savings quoted by the advocate is an average that varies depending on the size and age of the refrigerator being replaced.

Explanation: This question tests your ability to identify flawed reasoning in arguments that make improper assumptions about parts versus wholes. The advocate's reasoning contains a critical flaw: they assume that because refrigerators use 40% less electricity, the entire household bill will drop by 40%. This assumes refrigerators represent the majority of household electricity consumption, but this assumption isn't supported. Answer choice A directly exposes this flaw by revealing that refrigerators account for only a fraction of total household electricity use, while heating, cooling, and lighting consume far more power. If refrigerators represent, say, only 15% of total electricity consumption, then even a 40% reduction in refrigerator usage would only reduce the total bill by about 6% (40% of 15%), not 40%. Choice B actually strengthens the advocate's position by making energy-efficient refrigerators more financially attractive through rebates. Choice C introduces purchase cost concerns but doesn't address whether the 40% utility bill reduction claim is accurate. Choice D mentions that savings vary by refrigerator size and age, but this doesn't challenge the core reasoning error—it just suggests the exact percentage might differ while still accepting the flawed assumption. When you encounter strengthen/weaken questions on the GMAT, always look for unstated assumptions in the argument. Arguments that extrapolate from a part to the whole (like assuming refrigerator savings equals total household savings) are particularly vulnerable to attacks that reveal the true relationship between the part and the whole.

Question 5

1. Most translation apps require an internet connection, which is not consistently available in many popular travel destinations. (correct answer)
2. Some translation apps allow users to download phrase libraries in advance for offline use.
3. The majority of the blogger's readers travel primarily to major cities with reliable cellular data coverage.
4. Smartphone manufacturers continue to improve camera resolution, making on-screen text clearer for translation apps.

Explanation: When you encounter a "weaken the conclusion" question, you need to find evidence that makes the author's argument less convincing. The blogger concludes that foreign language study is unnecessary because translation apps can handle menus and street signs instantly. The correct answer, A, directly attacks a key assumption in the blogger's reasoning: that these apps will work reliably when needed. If translation apps require internet connections that aren't consistently available at travel destinations, then the "instant" translation the blogger relies on becomes unreliable. This forces travelers back to needing language skills, seriously undermining the conclusion that language study is unnecessary. Let's examine why the other choices fail to weaken the argument effectively. Choice B actually supports the blogger's position by showing that apps can work offline through downloaded phrase libraries. Choice C strengthens the argument by indicating that the blogger's audience travels to places with good data coverage, making apps more reliable. Choice D also supports the blogger by describing technological improvements that make translation apps work better. The key strategy for weaken questions is to identify what the argument assumes must be true, then find an answer choice that shows that assumption might be false. Here, the blogger assumes translation technology will be available when needed. Choice A directly challenges that assumption by highlighting a practical limitation that could leave travelers without their digital crutch, making language preparation valuable again.

Question 6

1. Manufacturers of several popular snack foods are prepared to reduce package sizes if sales decline after the "low-fat" label is removed.
2. Consumers who seek low-fat snacks often do so to justify eating larger quantities of those snacks than they would otherwise consider reasonable.
3. When a similar label-removal policy was tried in one region, sales of snacks previously labeled "low fat" actually increased as health-conscious consumers assumed the products were now full-fat and tastier. (correct answer)
4. Researchers found that taste, rather than perceived fat content, is the primary factor that determines how much of a snack people consume.

Explanation: When you encounter a "weaken the argument" question, you need to identify the logical connection the author is making and find evidence that breaks or undermines that chain of reasoning. The nutritionist's argument follows this logic: people overeat "low-fat" labeled foods → removing these labels → people will eat fewer calories from such snacks. This assumes that without the labels, people's eating behavior will change in a predictable way. Choice C destroys this assumption by showing that removing labels can have the opposite effect. When labels were actually removed in a real-world test, sales of the formerly low-fat snacks increased because consumers assumed they were now full-fat and therefore tastier. This directly contradicts the nutritionist's prediction that label removal leads to reduced consumption. Choice A is irrelevant because manufacturers' contingency plans don't affect whether the nutritionist's causal claim is valid. Choice B actually supports the nutritionist's argument by confirming that low-fat labels do encourage overeating. Choice D seems tempting, but it's too general—even if taste is the primary factor overall, the "low-fat" label could still influence portion sizes as the nutritionist claims. The key strategy for weaken questions is to look for real-world evidence that contradicts the author's predicted outcome, or alternative explanations that show the proposed cause won't produce the expected effect. Choice C provides both: concrete evidence of the opposite result occurring when the proposed solution was actually tried.

Question 7

1. Pilot programs of four-day workweeks have shown increases in employee-reported job satisfaction but no corresponding decrease in turnover rates. (correct answer)
2. Some industries, such as emergency services, cannot easily switch to a four-day schedule without hiring additional staff.
3. Employees who work four-day weeks often spend their extra day off attending to personal errands and appointments.
4. Companies that have adopted four-day workweeks typically see reductions in overhead costs such as lighting and office maintenance.

Explanation: When you encounter a "weaken" question on GMAT Verbal, you need to identify which answer choice directly undermines the causal relationship in the argument. Here, the social scientist claims that four-day workweeks reduce turnover because workers value the added leisure time. Answer choice A directly contradicts this claim by showing that even when job satisfaction increases (suggesting workers do value the extra day), turnover rates don't actually decrease. This breaks the core causal link the scientist proposes—if the supposed cause (valuing leisure) is present but the predicted effect (reduced turnover) doesn't occur, the argument falls apart. Let's examine why the other choices don't weaken the argument: B) identifies implementation challenges in certain industries but doesn't challenge whether four-day weeks reduce turnover when they are implemented. This is about feasibility, not effectiveness. C) describes how employees use their extra day off, but this doesn't contradict the idea that they value it or that it reduces turnover—personal errands could still be valuable to workers. D) actually supports implementing four-day weeks by showing additional benefits beyond reduced turnover, which if anything strengthens the case for such programs. Remember that effective weakeners in GMAT Critical Reasoning attack the argument's core logic, not peripheral issues. Look for answer choices that show the proposed cause failing to produce the predicted effect, or that introduce alternative explanations for the phenomenon. Avoid choices that merely present implementation challenges or irrelevant information.

Question 8

1. Some businesses will respond to a higher minimum wage by cutting employee hours, leaving total income for many workers unchanged. (correct answer)
2. Many minimum-wage workers live in households where another member earns well above the minimum wage.
3. Raising the minimum wage has the potential to increase government tax revenues collected from hourly workers.
4. Higher consumer spending can stimulate economic growth, which in turn can lead to additional job creation.

Explanation: This question tests your ability to identify assumptions and find evidence that weakens a causal argument. The economist's reasoning follows a simple chain: higher minimum wage → more income for low-wage workers → increased consumer spending. To weaken this argument, you need to find something that breaks this causal chain. Choice A directly attacks the first link in the chain. If businesses respond to higher minimum wages by cutting hours, then workers don't actually receive more total income despite the higher hourly rate. No additional income means no additional spending, completely undermining the economist's prediction. This is a classic example of unintended consequences that can occur when analyzing economic policies in isolation. Choice B is irrelevant to the argument. Even if minimum-wage workers live with higher earners, they would still have more personal income to spend immediately, which supports rather than weakens the economist's point about spending behavior. Choice C actually strengthens the argument by providing additional evidence that workers would indeed have more income (enough to generate higher tax revenues), supporting the economist's premise. Choice D also strengthens the argument by extending the positive economic effects beyond what the economist claimed, showing additional benefits rather than calling the prediction into question. When you encounter "weaken the argument" questions, look for answer choices that either challenge the underlying assumptions, provide alternative explanations, or show how the proposed cause might not lead to the predicted effect. The correct answer often reveals a gap in the original reasoning.

Question 9

1. Some adult smokers rely on flavored e-cigarettes as a transitional step toward quitting tobacco entirely.
2. Teenagers who have never used e-cigarettes frequently cite health concerns as their primary reason for abstaining.
3. After a similar ban was enacted in another country, black-market flavored cartridges became widely available to teenagers at lower prices than before. (correct answer)
4. Many teens report that they began vaping out of curiosity rather than attraction to particular flavors.

Explanation: When you encounter an "undermine the argument" question, you're looking for evidence that shows the conclusion won't follow from the premises, even if the premises are true. The official's argument has a clear logical structure: because teens prefer flavored e-cigarettes, banning them will significantly decrease teenage nicotine addiction. The correct answer is C because it demonstrates that the proposed solution (banning flavored e-cigarettes) could actually backfire. If a similar ban led to cheaper, more accessible black-market products, then banning flavored e-cigarettes might increase rather than decrease teenage access and use. This directly contradicts the official's prediction of significantly decreased addiction. Looking at the wrong answers: A discusses adult smokers using flavored e-cigarettes to quit tobacco, but this doesn't undermine the argument about teenage addiction—it's addressing a different population entirely. B actually supports the official's position by suggesting that health-conscious teens avoid vaping, which aligns with wanting to reduce teenage nicotine addiction. D mentions that teens begin vaping out of curiosity rather than flavor attraction, but even if curiosity initiates use, teens could still prefer flavored products afterward, making the ban potentially effective. On GMAT Critical Reasoning questions about undermining arguments, always look for answers that show the proposed cause-and-effect relationship is flawed or could produce unintended consequences. The strongest undermining evidence often reveals how a plan might achieve the opposite of its intended goal.

Question 10

1. A competing grocery chain plans to open a store two blocks from the proposed new location.
2. The new site is located on a busy thoroughfare that experiences considerable traffic congestion on weekends.
3. Most weekend shoppers at the current location live within walking distance and rarely drive to the store. (correct answer)
4. The current store's weekend sales are already higher than its weekday sales.

Explanation: When you encounter a "challenge" question on the GMAT, you're looking for information that undermines the core assumption underlying the argument. Here, the analyst assumes that easier parking will boost weekend sales, which implies that parking difficulty is currently limiting sales. The correct answer, C, devastates this assumption by revealing that most weekend shoppers walk to the store rather than drive. If customers aren't driving, then parking availability is irrelevant to their shopping decisions. This directly contradicts the analyst's premise that parking constraints are holding back weekend sales. Let's examine why the other choices don't work as effectively. Choice A introduces competition at the new location, which could hurt sales, but this doesn't challenge the specific claim about parking improving sales—it's an external factor. Choice B mentions traffic congestion, which might offset some parking benefits, but doesn't eliminate the potential advantage of easier parking once customers arrive. Choice D states that weekend sales already exceed weekday sales, but this doesn't contradict the idea that better parking could boost weekend sales even further. The key strategy here is to identify the argument's core assumption—that parking difficulty currently limits weekend sales—and find the choice that most directly contradicts this assumption. Look for answers that attack the fundamental logic rather than introducing tangential concerns. On strengthen/weaken questions, the most powerful answers typically address the connection between the premise and conclusion, not external factors.

Question 11

1. Many students appreciate the flexibility of being able to review lectures while commuting.
2. After lecture videos were introduced at a similar institution, average lecture attendance declined sharply, and exam scores remained unchanged. (correct answer)
3. Producing professional-quality lecture videos requires significant investment in cameras and editing software.
4. Faculty members who embrace video lectures often supplement them with live question-and-answer sessions.

Explanation: When you encounter a "weaken the argument" question, you need to identify the conclusion and then find evidence that undermines the logical connection between the premise and that conclusion. Here, the administrator concludes that recorded lecture videos will improve learning outcomes because students can rewatch complex material at their own pace. Choice B most effectively weakens this argument by providing concrete evidence that contradicts the expected outcome. At a similar institution, lecture videos led to declined attendance while exam scores stayed the same—meaning learning outcomes didn't actually improve despite the theoretical benefit of rewatching content. This directly challenges the administrator's prediction. Let's examine why the other options fail to weaken the argument: Choice A actually supports the administrator's position by highlighting another benefit of recorded lectures. Choice C identifies a practical challenge (cost) but doesn't address whether the videos would improve learning outcomes once implemented. Choice D describes a complementary teaching strategy but doesn't contradict the claim that recorded videos help learning. The key distinction is that B provides empirical evidence showing the administrator's predicted outcome didn't occur in practice, while the other choices either support the argument or address irrelevant concerns. Strategy tip: In weaken questions, look for answer choices that directly contradict the conclusion with specific evidence or examples. Avoid options that merely present obstacles, costs, or alternative viewpoints without challenging the core claim.

Question 12

1. Battery technology for electric buses is improving rapidly, leading to longer ranges between charges.
2. Electric buses are quieter than diesel buses, reducing noise pollution on city streets.
3. The city's fleet of buses accounts for only 5 percent of all vehicular traffic within the city.
4. The electricity used to charge the buses will be generated primarily by coal-fired power plants located just outside the city limits. (correct answer)

Explanation: This is a classic GMAT critical reasoning question that asks you to weaken an argument. When you see "calls into question" or "weakens," you need to find information that undermines the conclusion by attacking its assumptions or revealing unintended consequences. The environmental group concludes that switching to electric buses will "dramatically reduce urban air pollution" because diesel exhaust pollutes. This argument assumes that electric buses produce less overall pollution than diesel buses. Choice D destroys this assumption by revealing that the electricity will come from coal-fired power plants. Coal burning produces significant air pollution, potentially offsetting or even exceeding the pollution reduction from eliminating diesel exhaust. This directly challenges whether the switch will actually reduce overall air pollution, making it the strongest weakener. Choice A actually strengthens the argument by showing electric bus technology is improving. Choice B introduces noise pollution, which is irrelevant to the specific claim about air pollution. Choice C suggests buses represent only 5% of traffic, but this doesn't weaken the claim that switching them will dramatically reduce pollution—even 5% could represent a dramatic reduction if buses are major polluters. The key trap here is choice C, which might seem to minimize buses' impact. However, the argument isn't about the relative importance of buses versus other vehicles; it's specifically about whether switching buses will dramatically reduce pollution. Strategy tip: In weaken questions, look for answer choices that reveal hidden costs, unintended consequences, or false assumptions rather than just minimizing the scope of the argument.

Question 13

1. Surveys show that diners unfamiliar with plant-based meats are curious to try them at least once.
2. Plant-based meat alternatives generally have a higher profit margin than traditional meat dishes of similar price.
3. Competing restaurants in the same neighborhood have already begun offering plant-based options.
4. Some regular customers object to plant-based meats, believing that restaurants offering them compromise on culinary authenticity. (correct answer)

Explanation: When you encounter a "weaken the argument" question, you're looking for evidence that directly challenges the conclusion or undermines a key assumption. Here, the consultant concludes that plant-based options will increase total sales by attracting new customers without discouraging existing ones. The correct answer is D because it directly contradicts the consultant's assumption that existing patrons won't be discouraged. If some regular customers object to plant-based meats and view restaurants offering them as compromising on authenticity, these customers might reduce their visits or stop coming altogether. This scenario undermines the argument that total sales will increase, since the restaurant could lose existing business. Let's examine why the other options don't weaken the argument: A actually supports the consultant's position by suggesting new customers would indeed be attracted to try plant-based options. B is irrelevant to whether sales will increase—higher profit margins don't address customer behavior or total sales volume. C doesn't weaken the argument either; while competition might affect implementation strategy, it doesn't challenge whether adding these options will attract customers without discouraging existing ones. Remember that "weaken" questions often hinge on unstated assumptions in the original argument. Here, the consultant assumes existing customers will remain neutral or positive about the change. Always identify what the argument takes for granted, then look for answer choices that show those assumptions might be false.

Question 14

1. Most amateur runners have work schedules that make extended trips to high-altitude locations impractical.
2. The physiological effects of high-altitude training diminish within a few weeks of returning to lower elevations.
3. High-altitude training can lead to altitude sickness in individuals not accustomed to such environments, reducing training effectiveness. (correct answer)
4. Professional endurance athletes also follow specialized nutrition plans while training at altitude.

Explanation: When you encounter a "weaken the argument" question, you need to identify an assumption the argument makes and find evidence that undermines it. The coach's argument assumes that what works for professional athletes will work equally well for amateur runners. The correct answer is C because it directly attacks this assumption by showing that amateur runners may experience a fundamental barrier that professionals don't face. If high-altitude training causes altitude sickness in people unaccustomed to such environments, it would actually reduce training effectiveness for amateurs - the opposite of the intended benefit. This creates a crucial difference between professional athletes (who are likely accustomed to various training conditions) and amateur runners. Let's examine why the other options don't weaken the argument as effectively: A addresses practical concerns about scheduling, but this doesn't challenge whether high-altitude training would be beneficial if amateurs could do it. B points out that effects are temporary, but this applies equally to professionals and amateurs - it doesn't show why the advice is specifically bad for amateurs. D mentions nutrition plans but doesn't suggest this undermines the altitude training recommendation; it's just additional information about professional training regimens. The key strategy for weakening questions is to look for answer choices that reveal a fatal flaw in applying the premise to the conclusion. Here, the coach assumes amateur runners can achieve the same benefits as professionals, but C shows they may actually experience harm instead of benefit due to their different conditioning levels.

Question 15

1. Some recipients of mail appeals make donations online after receiving the letters.
2. Most donors under age 30 report that they prefer to receive charitable solicitations by text rather than by mail.
3. Sending text messages costs the organization significantly less than printing and mailing paper appeals.
4. Text messages requesting donations tend to yield smaller average contributions than mailed appeals do, even though they receive quicker responses. (correct answer)

Explanation: This question tests your ability to identify evidence that weakens an argument—a core skill in GMAT Critical Reasoning. When an organization claims one method will "raise more funds," you need to focus on total fundraising effectiveness, not just response speed. The organization's logic is flawed: they assume faster responses automatically mean more total funds raised. Answer choice D directly challenges this assumption by showing that while text messages do generate quicker responses, they produce smaller average donations than mail appeals. If each text donation is significantly smaller, the faster response time becomes irrelevant—the organization could actually raise less money overall despite quicker replies. Let's examine why the other choices don't weaken the claim: Choice A mentions that some mail recipients donate online, but this doesn't compare the effectiveness of text versus mail appeals. Choice B actually supports the organization's preference for texting by showing younger donors favor this method. Choice C discusses cost savings from texting, which would strengthen rather than weaken the case for text appeals, since lower costs could mean higher net fundraising even with equal gross donations. The key trap here is conflating speed with effectiveness. The organization commits this error, and wrong answers like B and C might tempt you if you don't focus on what truly matters: total funds raised. Strategy tip: In "weaken the argument" questions, identify the precise claim being made, then look for evidence that directly contradicts the expected outcome, not just tangential information about the topic.

Question 16

1. The proprietary amino-acid blend in the supplement is also present in many standard whey protein powders.
2. Independent laboratory tests show that the supplement's total protein content is lower than that of most whey protein products with similar serving sizes. (correct answer)
3. Some athletes are allergic to dairy-based supplements such as whey protein.
4. Early user testimonials praise the supplement's taste and mixability in water.

Explanation: When you encounter a question asking what "most seriously undermines" a company's assertion, you're dealing with a weaken-the-argument question. You need to find evidence that directly contradicts or casts serious doubt on the specific claim being made. The company's assertion has two key components: their supplement helps users gain muscle mass faster than traditional whey protein because it contains a proprietary blend of amino acids. To undermine this claim effectively, you need to attack either the uniqueness of their formula or their product's ability to deliver superior results. Choice B directly challenges the product's ability to deliver superior muscle-building results. If independent tests show the supplement has lower total protein content than comparable whey products, this seriously undermines the claim that it will help users gain muscle faster. Protein content is fundamental to muscle building, so having less protein makes the "faster gains" claim highly questionable. Choice A weakens the uniqueness claim but doesn't eliminate the possibility that their specific blend could still work better. Choice C introduces irrelevant information about allergies that doesn't address the effectiveness comparison. Choice D actually supports the company by providing positive user feedback, making it strengthen rather than weaken their position. Strategy tip: In weaken-the-argument questions, look for answer choices that directly contradict the core claim with objective evidence. Avoid answers that are tangential to the main assertion or that introduce unrelated factors, even if those factors seem negative.

Question 17

1. Many commercial tomato farmers rotate their crops annually to prevent soil depletion rather than to deter insect infestations.
2. In a controlled experiment, tomato plots interplanted with marigolds experienced the same percentage of leaf damage from insects as plots without marigolds but treated with no pesticides. (correct answer)
3. Some varieties of marigold thrive only in soil with a higher pH than the soil preferred by tomato plants.
4. Chemical pesticides used on tomatoes can also harm beneficial insects, such as pollinators, that inhabit the garden.

Explanation: When you encounter a question asking what "calls into question" or "weakens" a claim, you're dealing with critical reasoning. Your job is to find evidence that directly contradicts or undermines the central assertion. The gardener's claim has two key components: that marigolds repel insects from tomatoes AND that this makes pesticides unnecessary. To weaken this claim effectively, you need evidence showing marigolds don't actually provide the promised protection. Choice B delivers exactly this kind of contradictory evidence. If tomato plots with marigolds suffered the same insect damage as plots with no marigolds and no pesticides, then marigolds clearly aren't providing any protective benefit. This directly contradicts the core premise that marigolds repel harmful insects. Choice A is irrelevant because crop rotation addresses soil depletion, not insect control—it doesn't touch the marigold claim. Choice C presents a compatibility issue between some marigold varieties and tomato growing conditions, but this doesn't prove marigolds are ineffective when they can be grown together. Choice D actually supports avoiding chemical pesticides by highlighting their negative effects on beneficial insects, which could strengthen rather than weaken the case for natural alternatives like marigolds. Strategy tip: In "weaken the argument" questions, look for answer choices that provide direct contradictory evidence to the main claim. Avoid choices that discuss related but irrelevant topics, present minor obstacles, or actually support the argument from a different angle.

Question 18

1. Customers who contact phone support typically do so when experiencing time-sensitive problems, such as a vehicle failing to unlock through the app. (correct answer)
2. The majority of app users interact with the company outside normal business hours, when phone lines are currently closed.
3. Maintaining 24-hour phone support costs the company significantly more than supporting the app alone.
4. Over the past year, the percentage of bookings made through desktop computers has steadily declined.

Explanation: This is a "weaken the argument" question that tests your ability to identify flawed reasoning and find evidence that undermines a conclusion. The executive concludes that eliminating phone support won't harm customer satisfaction simply because most customers use the app for booking. The key flaw in this reasoning is assuming that booking method predicts support needs. Choice A exposes this perfectly: customers use phone support specifically when the app fails them during urgent situations like being unable to unlock a vehicle. Even if only a small percentage of customers need phone support, these are precisely the moments when alternative help is most critical for satisfaction. Eliminating phone support would leave customers stranded during app failures, directly harming satisfaction regardless of normal booking patterns. Choice B actually supports the executive's position by showing that phone lines are already unavailable when most customers are active. Choice C presents a cost consideration but doesn't address whether eliminating phone support would harm customer satisfaction—the executive's specific claim. Choice D is irrelevant since it discusses desktop versus app usage, not phone support needs. The trap here is focusing on quantity (most customers use the app) rather than quality (when do customers most need alternative support). The executive's reasoning treats all customer interactions as equivalent, ignoring that support needs arise precisely when primary systems fail. Strategy tip: In "weaken the argument" questions, look for answer choices that reveal unstated assumptions or show scenarios where the premises can be true but the conclusion still fails.

Question 19

1. In open-plan environments, managers have greater visibility into their teams' daily activities.
2. Companies with open-plan designs typically spend less on constructing individual offices than those with traditional layouts.
3. Some employees prefer open offices because they feel part of a community rather than isolated.
4. A recent survey found that employees in open-plan offices wear noise-canceling headphones more often than employees in private offices do. (correct answer)

Explanation: When you encounter a "weaken the argument" question on the GMAT, you need to identify evidence that undermines the logical connection between the premise and conclusion. Here, the consultant argues that open-plan offices increase spontaneous communication, which leads to more innovation. Option D seriously weakens this claim because if employees are frequently wearing noise-canceling headphones, they're actively blocking out their environment and making themselves less available for the very spontaneous communication the consultant claims is beneficial. This behavior suggests that rather than embracing increased interaction, employees are seeking to minimize it—directly contradicting the premise that open offices foster helpful communication. Let's examine why the other options fail to weaken the argument: Option A about manager visibility is irrelevant to spontaneous employee communication and innovation. Option B regarding construction costs doesn't address whether open offices actually increase communication or innovation—it's about economics, not workplace dynamics. Option C about employees feeling part of a community actually supports the consultant's position by suggesting open offices create positive social connections. The key trap here is distinguishing between answers that are merely irrelevant versus those that directly contradict the argument's logic. Options A, B, and C either support the claim or discuss unrelated factors, while only D provides behavioral evidence that employees are actively avoiding the increased communication that open offices supposedly promote. Remember: effective weakening answers attack the causal relationship in the argument. Look for evidence showing the proposed cause doesn't lead to the claimed effect, or that it produces the opposite result.

Question 20

1. Several large corporations provide employees with free subscriptions to popular digital planner apps.
2. Digital planners allow users to set automatic reminders for upcoming tasks and deadlines.
3. Some users find traditional paper planners more visually appealing than digital ones.
4. Highly organized individuals are more likely than others to adopt digital planning tools. (correct answer)

Explanation: This question tests your ability to identify flaws in causal reasoning, specifically the difference between correlation and causation. The coach observes that people who use digital planners are more productive and concludes that digital planners cause increased productivity. The correct answer is D because it reveals an alternative explanation for the observed correlation. If highly organized individuals are naturally drawn to digital planning tools, then their productivity might stem from their pre-existing organizational skills rather than from the planner itself. This creates a classic "third variable" problem—the coach may be confusing cause and effect. The digital planner doesn't make people productive; rather, productive people choose digital planners. Let's examine why the other options don't weaken the argument effectively: A) The fact that corporations provide free subscriptions is irrelevant to whether digital planners actually increase productivity. B) This option actually strengthens the coach's argument by explaining a mechanism through which digital planners could boost productivity. C) Visual preferences about paper versus digital planners don't address the core claim about productivity benefits. When you encounter strengthen/weaken questions involving correlations, always look for answer choices that suggest alternative causal relationships. The pattern to remember: just because two things occur together doesn't mean one causes the other. Watch for answers that introduce a "third variable" that could explain the observed relationship without supporting the author's causal conclusion.