Beat The GMAT - the MBA Social Network

This week, we’re going to analyze a challenging GMATPrep® Critical Reasoning question.

First, set your timer for 2 minutes and try the problem!

Twelve years ago and again five years ago, there were extended periods when the Darfir Republic’s currency, the pundra, was weak: its value was unusually low relative to the world’s most stable currencies. Both times a weak pundra made Darfir’s manufactured products a bargain on world markets, and Darfir’s exports were up substantially. Now some politicians are saying that, in order to cause another similarly sized increase in exports, the government should allow the pundra to become weak again.

Which of the following, if true, provides the government with the strongest grounds to doubt that the politicians’ recommendation, if followed, will achieve its aim?

A) Several of the politicians now recommending that the pundra be allowed to become weak made that same recommendation before each of the last two periods of currency weakness.

B) After several decades of operating well below peak capacity, Darfir’s manufacturing sector is now operating at near-peak levels.

C) The economy of a country experiencing a rise in exports will become healthier only if the country’s currency is strong or the rise in exports is significant.

D) Those countries whose manufactured products compete with Darfir’s on the world market all currently have stable currencies.

E) A sharp improvement in the efficiency of Darfir’s manufacturing plants would make Darfir’s products a bargain on world markets even without any weakening of the pundra relative to other currencies.”

Read the question stem first.  This allows you to determine at least one and possibly two things:

(1) The type of question
(2) (Sometimes) the conclusion or something about the conclusion

In this case, “strongest grounds to doubt” that something “will achieve its aim” signals a “weaken the conclusion” question type. “The politicians’ recommendation will achieve its aim” tells us that the “politicians’ recommendation” is the conclusion. Now, we just have to keep an eye out for that when we read the argument.

Start reading and diagramming the argument (taking very brief notes):

12ya and 5ya, pun weak; v. ↓ val → prods brgn so exps ­↑

Ps: let pun get weak → ↑ ­ exp like b4

I’ll translate this into “real” words, but your notes shouldn’t be full sentences; your notes should look something like the notes above (with your own abbreviations and symbols, of course).

12 years ago and 5 years ago, the pundra was weak; it had a very low value relative to other countries’ currencies. This caused D’s products to be a big bargain for other countries, so exports rose a lot.

The politicians say that if the government lets the pundra get weak again, then exports will be boosted to a similar level.

The second part is the conclusion – it tells us what the politicians recommend and what they predict will happen as a result. We need to weaken that conclusion. The first thing we should think is: well, just because something happened a certain way before doesn’t mean it’ll happen that way again. The politicians are assuming everything will be exactly the same as before.

What would need to happen in order for the plan to work the way the politicians say? First, the government has to be able to let the pundra get weak on purpose – and the pundra would have to get weak enough to trigger an “unusually low” value relative to other currencies. Then, if the situation were to trigger much larger demand for the products, then the companies would also have to be able to make more of the products in order to satisfy that increased demand.

There may also be some other thing we haven’t thought of yet that could have been one way 12 years and 5 years ago but different today. Whatever the specifics, though, the correct answer should highlight some difference between the two previous periods and today and that difference should weaken the plan.

Note: the correct answer only has to make it somewhat less likely that the conclusion is valid. The correct answer does not have to completely invalidate the conclusion.

Before we dive into the choices, let’s talk about how we evaluate Weaken the Conclusion answer choices in general. On your first pass through, very quickly assign one of three labels to each choice:

(1) S (for strengthen)
(2) W (for weaken)
(3) / (a slash, for “does nothing to the conclusion”)

If you aren’t sure (let’s say you’re debating whether a choice is S or /), then put both symbols down (S/) and move on. Don’t get hung up on any one answer choice. (Especially this one – we want a W, so it doesn’t matter whether the category is S or /. They’re both wrong!)

Go try that right now with all five answer choices before you continue reading. I’ll wait.

A) “Several of the politicians now recommending that the pundra be allowed to become weak made that same recommendation before each of the last two periods of currency weakness.”

Wow. Maybe their ability to make these predictions helped to get them elected! Is this S, W, or slash? I could go with either / or S here, so I’ll put both down and move on.

B) “After several decades of operating well below peak capacity, Darfir’s manufacturing sector is now operating at near-peak levels.”

So that means that they’re already making almost as much as they can today. In addition, they were not making anywhere near as much as they could 12 years ago and 5 years ago. That’s a change from the last two times when exports went up a lot. Does that change actually matter? If they can only make a little more product, will they be able to fill the demand if it goes up a lot? This one’s looking like it could weaken the situation.

C) “The economy of a country experiencing a rise in exports will become healthier only if the country’s currency is strong or the rise in exports is significant.”

“The economy… will become healthier…” Is the goal to make the economy healthier? That certainly sounds like a good goal. Is that what the argument says? No, the plan is more specific: to increase exports. This choice does mention something about a rise in exports, though, and the wording’s a little confusing, so I’m not going to think about it anymore – I’m going to give it W and slash and move on. (Not because I think this does weaken but because I just don’t know, so it’s possible that this is the right one.)

D) “Those countries whose manufactured products compete with Darfir’s on the world market all currently have stable currencies.”

Hmm. Is the issue whether other countries have stable currencies? Do we know about those other countries during the previous 2 periods (12 years ago and 5 years ago)? No – not from the argument and not from this choice. Slash.

E) “A sharp improvement in the efficiency of Darfir’s manufacturing plants would make Darfir’s products a bargain on world markets even without any weakening of the pundra relative to other currencies.”

This might be true; perhaps this is a better plan overall… but they didn’t ask me to find a better plan. They asked me to weaken the given conclusion. Does it address the stated conclusion, which is to increase exports specifically by weakening the currency? No. Slash.

Here’s what my answer sheet looks like:

A) S/
B) W
C) W/
D) /
E) /

Now, evaluate. It’s definitely not A, D, or E; cross those off. Take a look at B and C one more time. If you thought B was a weaken and you weren’t sure about C, then you can just pick B – if it does weaken, then it fulfills the requirements of the question. If you want to examine C further, though, try diagramming it.

The answer choice is in the form: X will occur ONLY IF Y is true OR Z is true. Reverse and split the info:

• If currency strong → econ healthy
• If sig. rise in exports → econ healthy

The first one certainly doesn’t apply here; we want to make the currency weak. The second says that IF exports go up a lot, THEN the economy will be healthy. Does this have any bearing on whether making the currency weak will cause the exports to rise? No; this new information occurs only after the exports have risen. Slash.

The correct answer is B.

The major take-aways here:

1. Read the question stem first in order to determine the question type and (possibly) the conclusion or something about the conclusion
2. If step 1 didn’t already give you the conclusion, find the conclusion. Briefly brainstorm weaknesses / holes in the argument. Remind yourself that “weaken” means “makes the conclusion less likely to be valid.”
3. Quickly assign S, W, or / to each answer choice. If you’re not sure, assign two categories and move on; don’t get hung up on one choice.
4. Evaluate your labels for each choice. Eliminate those that definitely can’t be right. Evaluate any remaining possibilities more carefully, including diagramming the information if necessary.

* GMATPrep® question courtesy of the Graduate Management Admissions Council. Usage of this question does not imply endorsement by GMAC.