Critical Reasoning – Figuring out the Dialog Format (II)
 |
Click here to read more articles from Master GMAT and to learn more about Master GMAT's classes. |
In last week’s post I left the readers with a question about distinguishing between two different Critical Reasoning questions in the Dialog Format.
I’m glad to say that the one astute reader who responded, answered correctly. Questions in the Dialog Format that are phrased as follows: “B responds to A by” – most resemble Boldface Type questions, and should be properly called Dialog Analysis questions. Dialog Analysis questions are a relatively uncommon type of question on the GMAT, but one which appears from time to time. In this question type, the argument usually appears in the Dialog format, citing the arguments of two sides. You are required to assess, explain, or describe the second side’s response to the first.
Let’s go back the example in the original post, and walk through the solution:
Trucker: The new law will cause the entire transportation industry to shrink. It requires the installation of fire extinguishers and shatter-proof glass in all trucks and has cost truckers nationwide billions of dollars. This led us to bring up our prices, which reduced the number of our clients.
Businessman: Businesses will just opt for other methods of transportation such as small commercial vehicles, trains and boats.
The businessman responds to the trucker by
You can see why these questions resemble Boldface Type questions – you are asked to analyze the relationship between the first side’s argument and the second’s response, and find the answer that best explains your analysis.
The strategy for solving Dialog Analysis questions does not deviate from our standard strategy. First, break down the dialog into premises and conclusions (and hidden assumptions). Then, assess the relationship between the two sides of the argument. This involves two steps:
- First, establish whether the second side agrees or not with the first side’s argument
- Second, determine how the second side supports or attacks the first side’s argument
Here’s how we would solve this sample question. First break down the trucker’s argument. The first sentence is a prediction, which is the trucker’s conclusion; the next two sentences provide factual information (premises):
Premise: the requirements of the new law cost truckers billions of dollars
+
Premise: this led truckers to raise prices and lose customers
=
Conclusion: the new law will cause the transportation industry to shrink (i.e., fewer people and businesses will use transportation services)
Possible Assumption: trucks constitute the entire transportation industry
Next, break down the businessman’s response:
(i) there are other kinds of transportation which will benefit from the truckers’ misfortune
An important thing to remember is to focus on the speaker the question stem relates to. Here, since the question stem relates to the businessman’s response, look for judgments, opinions, predictions, or positions expressed by the businessman.
So, what have we here? We can see that the businessman targets the trucker’s assumption and suggests that the transportation industry will not shrink, just experience a shift from trucks to other means of transportation.
Now, suppose that you were offered the following two answer choices to choose from:
The businessman responds to the trucker by
(A) suggesting that the trucker’s argument overlooks an alleviating factor
(B) supporting the trucker’s conclusion but disputing her underlying assumption
Which would you choose? Don’t get tricked just by seeing the word ‘assumption’ in answer choice B. Make sure that the entire statement is valid. Answer choice B is correct only in part – the businessman disputes the trucker’s assumption, but does not support her conclusion. Answer choice A is better in this case. The businessman focuses on what the trucker assumed - that hindering the trucking industry will have a similar effect on the entire transportation industry. By predicting that the clients will turn to other service providers within the industry, the businessman suggests that the industry will not shrink, just shift internally.
