Identify Premises and Evidence
Help Questions
GRE Verbal › Identify Premises and Evidence
A technology manager argues that a company should standardize on a single project-management platform. Over the past year, teams using three different platforms spent an average of two additional hours per week reconciling task lists during cross-team projects, according to internal time logs. In a three-month experiment, two departments that switched to the same platform reduced missed handoffs by 30% and reported fewer duplicated tasks, while their project scope and staffing levels stayed constant. Therefore, adopting one platform companywide will improve coordination and efficiency. The author relies on which of the following as a premise?
The chosen platform will certainly be the cheapest option available on the market.
Any standardized software choice will automatically eliminate all project delays.
The company’s headquarters has recently renovated its office space.
Teams using three different platforms spent an average of two additional hours per week reconciling task lists during cross-team projects.
Adopting one platform companywide will improve coordination and efficiency.
Explanation
This question asks you to identify premises or evidence in an argument. Premises are the factual statements that provide support for the conclusion being made. The manager's conclusion is that "adopting one platform companywide will improve coordination and efficiency." The Borrect answer (B) provides specific quantitative evidence of inefficiency: "teams using three different platforms spent an average of two additional hours per week reconciling task lists during cross-team projects." This measurable time loss directly supports the need for standardization by showing the current cost of using multiple platforms. The premise establishes that fragmentation creates real productivity problems, which the proposed solution would address. Choice A is incorrect because it restates the conclusion—it's the claim the argument is trying to establish, not a reason offered to support that claim.
A company’s HR director concludes that offering a commuter benefit for public transit will reduce employee turnover. Exit interviews from the past year show that a notable share of departing employees cited commuting costs as a significant burden, and payroll records indicate that employees with the longest commutes have resigned at higher rates than those living closer. When a small group in one office received pre-tax transit passes for three months, that office reported fewer late arrivals and a modest increase in employee satisfaction scores. Therefore, the director recommends expanding the commuter benefit to all offices. The author relies on which of the following as a premise?
Exit interviews show that some departing employees cited commuting costs as a significant burden.
The company was founded more than a decade ago and has multiple regional offices.
Most competing companies already offer free parking to all employees.
The director recommends expanding the commuter benefit to all offices.
If commuter benefits are offered, no employee will ever leave the company for any other reason.
Explanation
This question asks you to identify premises or evidence supporting an argument. Premises are the factual statements that provide reasons for the conclusion. The HR director's conclusion is that "offering a commuter benefit for public transit will reduce employee turnover." The Borrect answer (B) provides direct evidence linking commuting costs to turnover: "Exit interviews show that some departing employees cited commuting costs as a significant burden." This statement establishes that commuting expenses are actually a factor in why employees leave, which supports the idea that addressing this burden through benefits could reduce turnover. Combined with data about resignation rates and the positive pilot results, this premise builds the case for the proposed benefit. Choice A is incorrect because it restates the conclusion and recommendation—it's what the argument seeks to establish, not evidence offered to support it.
A public health analyst contends that the rise in heat-related illnesses in Lakemont is largely due to urban development patterns rather than changes in residents’ behavior. Over the last decade, tree canopy coverage in the city center fell by 20% as parking lots and low-rise buildings replaced older green spaces, and satellite measurements show that nighttime surface temperatures in those areas now remain several degrees higher than in surrounding suburbs. Hospital admissions for heat exhaustion increased most sharply in the same central neighborhoods, even though survey data indicate that reported outdoor recreation time has not increased. Therefore, Lakemont should prioritize shade and cooling infrastructure in its redevelopment plans. Which of the following is offered as evidence in support of the argument's conclusion?
Cities with more trees always have lower rates of every type of hospital admission.
Lakemont is located in a region that experiences seasonal heat waves.
Tree canopy coverage in the city center fell by 20% as parking lots and low-rise buildings replaced older green spaces.
Installing cooling infrastructure will be inexpensive because local contractors will volunteer their labor.
Lakemont should prioritize shade and cooling infrastructure in its redevelopment plans.
Explanation
This question tests your ability to identify premises or evidence supporting an argument's conclusion. Premises are the specific facts or observations that provide reasons for accepting the conclusion. The analyst's conclusion is that "Lakemont should prioritize shade and cooling infrastructure in its redevelopment plans." The Borrect answer (B) provides concrete evidence linking urban development to heat problems: "Tree canopy coverage in the city center fell by 20% as parking lots and low-rise buildings replaced older green spaces." This statement establishes that development patterns have reduced natural cooling features, which supports the argument that the city needs to actively add shade and cooling infrastructure. Combined with data about increased temperatures and hospital admissions in these same areas, this premise builds the case for the proposed solution. Choice A is incorrect because it states the conclusion itself—what the argument seeks to prove—rather than providing evidence for that conclusion.
A city planner concludes that Riverton should convert one downtown traffic lane into a protected bike lane. Bicycle counts on the main corridor have doubled over five years, while car counts on the same corridor have remained essentially flat. After a nearby city installed protected lanes on a comparable street, retail vacancy rates on that street fell and pedestrian injuries declined, according to that city’s annual safety report. Since Riverton’s corridor has similar block length and storefront density, the planner argues that a protected lane would likely yield comparable safety and economic benefits. Which statement functions as a reason in the argument?
Bicycle counts on the main corridor have doubled over five years, while car counts on the same corridor have remained essentially flat.
Protected bike lanes always increase retail sales in every neighborhood regardless of other conditions.
Riverton should convert one downtown traffic lane into a protected bike lane.
Drivers in Riverton will support the conversion because it will reduce their commute times.
Riverton’s downtown includes several historic buildings and a riverfront park.
Explanation
This question tests identifying premises or evidence that support an argument. Premises are the stated facts or observations used to justify the conclusion. The planner's conclusion is that "Riverton should convert one downtown traffic lane into a protected bike lane." The Borrect answer (B) provides specific traffic data: "Bicycle counts on the main corridor have doubled over five years, while car counts on the same corridor have remained essentially flat." This evidence demonstrates increasing demand for bicycle infrastructure without corresponding growth in car traffic, supporting the reallocation of road space from cars to bikes. The premise shows that usage patterns have shifted, making the proposed conversion logical. Choice A is incorrect because it simply states the conclusion—what the argument aims to prove—rather than offering evidence to support that conclusion.
An editorial about Rivergate’s drinking water concludes that the city should replace aging lead service lines within five years. Recent sampling found that 14% of tested homes exceeded the recommended lead threshold, and the highest readings occurred in neighborhoods built before 1950, when lead pipes were commonly used. The city also spent more on emergency pipe repairs last year than in any of the prior ten years, suggesting the system is deteriorating. Therefore, a planned replacement program is more prudent than continuing to address problems only as they arise. Which statement functions as a reason in the argument?
A new federal grant will cover the entire cost of replacing all of Rivergate’s pipes.
Rivergate draws its drinking water from a nearby reservoir.
The highest lead readings occurred in neighborhoods built before 1950, when lead pipes were commonly used.
Replacing lead service lines will be popular with all residents because it will not raise water rates.
Rivergate should replace aging lead service lines within five years.
Explanation
This question tests identifying premises or evidence in an argument. Premises are the stated facts or reasons that support the conclusion being made. The editorial's conclusion is that "Rivergate should replace aging lead service lines within five years." The Borrect answer (B) provides specific evidence linking lead contamination to the age of infrastructure: "The highest lead readings occurred in neighborhoods built before 1950, when lead pipes were commonly used." This statement establishes a clear connection between old pipes and current lead problems, supporting the need for replacement. It functions as a reason because it explains why the lead problem exists and implies that replacing these old pipes would address the issue. Choice A is incorrect because it merely restates the conclusion—it's the claim the argument is trying to establish, not evidence supporting that claim.
A museum director argues that the museum should invest in a digital membership program. In a survey of lapsed members, the most common reason for not renewing was that they "forgot" to use benefits, and 62% said they would be more likely to renew if reminders and passes were accessible on a phone. After the museum introduced a simple digital ticket wallet for a limited group, renewal rates in that group were 15% higher than for comparable members who received only paper mailings. Hence, expanding the digital program will increase membership retention. The argument treats which of the following as evidence?
Other museums in the region have already adopted digital memberships and seen large revenue gains.
Renewal rates were 15% higher for members given a digital ticket wallet than for comparable members who received only paper mailings.
The museum offers both general admission and special exhibition tickets.
Expanding the digital program will increase membership retention.
If the museum invests in digital membership, it will not need to spend money on any other marketing.
Explanation
This question asks you to identify premises or evidence used to support an argument. Premises are the factual statements or data points that provide reasons for accepting the conclusion. The director's conclusion is that "expanding the digital program will increase membership retention." The Borrect answer (B) presents concrete comparative data: "renewal rates were 15% higher for members given a digital ticket wallet than for comparable members who received only paper mailings." This controlled comparison provides empirical evidence that digital tools actually improve renewal rates, directly supporting the conclusion about expanding the program. The phrase "comparable members" is particularly important as it suggests a fair test of the digital approach. Choice A is incorrect because it simply restates the conclusion—it's what the argument aims to prove, not evidence offered to prove it.
A school district administrator argues that the district should adopt a later start time for high school students. In the past two years, first-period tardiness has been highest among students who ride the earliest bus routes, and a district survey found that students reporting fewer than seven hours of sleep were significantly more likely to miss morning classes. In a pilot at one high school that shifted the start time by 45 minutes, average attendance increased and nurse visits for fatigue-related complaints decreased, even though the curriculum and grading policies stayed the same. Therefore, the district should move all high schools to a later start time. Which of the following is offered as evidence in support of the argument's conclusion?
The district operates a fleet of buses that serves both middle and high schools.
If start times are later, every student will use the extra time exclusively for sleep.
In the pilot school, average attendance increased and nurse visits for fatigue-related complaints decreased after the start time shifted by 45 minutes.
The district should move all high schools to a later start time.
A later start time will allow the district to reduce spending on after-school activities.
Explanation
This question asks you to identify premises or evidence supporting an argument's conclusion. Premises are the factual statements or data that provide reasons for accepting the conclusion. The administrator's conclusion is that "the district should move all high schools to a later start time." The Borrect answer (B) presents concrete results from a pilot program: "average attendance increased and nurse visits for fatigue-related complaints decreased after the start time shifted by 45 minutes." This empirical evidence from an actual test of the proposed change directly supports the conclusion by showing positive outcomes when the intervention was implemented. The controlled nature of the pilot (same curriculum and grading policies) strengthens this evidence. Choice A is incorrect because it restates the conclusion itself—it's what the argument seeks to establish, not a reason offered in support of that claim.
In the city of Norhaven, the transit authority argues that it should implement congestion pricing downtown. Over the past two years, average bus speeds in the pricing zone have fallen by 18%, and traffic sensors show that private vehicles account for most of the peak-hour lane occupancy. After a six-week pilot that charged drivers a small fee to enter the zone during rush hour, bus speeds increased by 12% and on-time performance improved, even though the number of buses in service did not change. Therefore, adopting congestion pricing permanently will improve the reliability of public transit in Norhaven. Which of the following is offered as evidence in support of the argument's conclusion?
Norhaven’s downtown includes a designated pricing zone monitored by traffic sensors.
If congestion pricing is adopted permanently, most drivers will switch to carpooling rather than pay the fee.
Cities that adopt congestion pricing always experience long-term reductions in air pollution.
During the six-week pilot, bus speeds increased by 12% even though the number of buses in service did not change.
Congestion pricing will improve the reliability of public transit in Norhaven.
Explanation
This question tests your ability to identify premises or evidence that support an argument's conclusion. Premises are the stated reasons or facts that an author uses to justify their conclusion. In this passage, the conclusion is that "adopting congestion pricing permanently will improve the reliability of public transit in Norhaven." The Borrect answer (B) presents specific data from the pilot program: "bus speeds increased by 12% even though the number of buses in service did not change." This empirical evidence directly supports the conclusion by showing that congestion pricing actually improved transit performance during the trial. Choice A is incorrect because it restates the conclusion itself rather than providing evidence for it—the argument aims to prove this claim, not use it as support.
A university committee claims that expanding evening library hours will raise student academic performance. In a trial month when the library stayed open until midnight, entry logs showed a 35% increase in visits after 9 p.m., and tutoring appointments held in library study rooms rose by 22%. In addition, students in introductory chemistry reported in a survey that they completed more problem sets on weeknights because they could work in a quiet space. Thus, the committee concludes that the university should fund permanent late-night library staffing. The author relies on which of the following as a premise?
During the trial month, entry logs showed a 35% increase in visits after 9 p.m.
Any increase in library visits necessarily causes higher grades across all departments.
The library has historically closed at 9 p.m. on most weeknights.
Professors will assign fewer readings if the library stays open later.
The university should fund permanent late-night library staffing.
Explanation
This question asks you to identify premises or evidence supporting the argument's conclusion. Premises are the factual statements or observations that provide reasons for accepting the conclusion. The conclusion here is that "the university should fund permanent late-night library staffing." The Borrect answer (B) provides concrete data from the trial period: "entry logs showed a 35% increase in visits after 9 p.m." This measurable increase in library usage during extended hours serves as evidence that students actually take advantage of later hours, supporting the committee's recommendation. This premise, combined with other evidence about increased tutoring appointments and student survey responses, builds the case for permanent funding. Choice A is incorrect because it simply restates the conclusion—it's what the argument seeks to prove, not a reason offered in support of that conclusion.
An environmental economist argues that the state should offer rebates for home insulation upgrades. Utility data show that households with older, poorly insulated homes use substantially more energy per square foot in winter than newer homes, and a small rebate program in one county led to a measurable drop in average winter electricity demand there the following year. Because lower peak demand reduces the need for expensive standby generation, the economist concludes that statewide rebates would save money for the grid as well as for homeowners. The argument treats which of the following as evidence?
The federal government will soon require every state to provide insulation rebates.
Statewide rebates would save money for the grid as well as for homeowners.
A small rebate program in one county led to a measurable drop in average winter electricity demand there the following year.
The state experiences cold winters and occasional snowstorms.
All homeowners will choose the most expensive insulation option if any rebate is offered.
Explanation
This question tests your ability to identify premises or evidence in an argument. Premises are the specific facts or observations that support the conclusion being made. The economist's conclusion is that "statewide rebates would save money for the grid as well as for homeowners." The Borrect answer (B) provides empirical evidence from a real-world test: "a small rebate program in one county led to a measurable drop in average winter electricity demand there the following year." This concrete example demonstrates that rebates actually work to reduce energy demand, which supports the argument for expanding the program statewide. The premise shows proven effectiveness at a smaller scale, suggesting similar benefits at a larger scale. Choice A is incorrect because it states the conclusion itself—what the argument aims to prove—rather than providing evidence to support that conclusion.