An Introduction to Multi-Source Reasoning on the GMAT
 |
Vivian is a GMAT Tutor for Grockit. Visit Grockit for more test prep advice. |
Multi-Source Reasoning questions are one of the four new Integrated Reasoning question types which will begin appearing on the GMAT in June of 2012. Multi-Source Reasoning provides three pieces of information on tabbed pages – charts, data, articles, emails, etc. The pieces provide a lot of information, not all of which is necessary to answer the question. The pieces may be Quantitative in nature or Verbal, or a combination of both. You may click back and forth between all three pieces to locate the needed data.
The questions consist of either a set of yes/no statements, or multiple-choice questions. Information from more than one tab will be required to answer the questions, but the same tab can be used for more than one question. According to GMAC, this question type is designed to mimic “the case study approach used by many management programs” and tests the “ability to integrate different types of information…from different sources.” Let’s take a look at a sample Multi-Source Reasoning question from Grockit’s question bank to see how we can approach this new question-type!
Article 1
News article in an environmental publication
July 19 – If current trends continue, fossil fuels will be exhausted by 2052. Industry and transportation and the inability of governments to put stricter emissions regulations in place means that there will be a greater demand for alternative energy sources. Additionally, recent concerns about the high-cost of implementing new systems such as public transportation in industrialized areas has led many voters to actually strike down propositions to subsidize alternative fuel research.
Article 2
Interview with a well-known scientist
August 3 – Dr. Lisa Goodman, one of the team of architects behind several new battery-operated commercial vehicles, has criticized the government’s unwillingness to aggressively lobby voters to pass measures to reduce fossil fuel usage. She suggests that without a significant reduction in per-person fossil fuel consumption, the rate of global warming could soon increase threefold.
“I know that voters continue to reject costly measures to reduce widespread fossil fuel consumption such as large-scale public transportation projects, and that politicians are naturally going to avoid stumping for unpopular policies. However, if something isn’t done soon, by 2055, a barrel of gasoline may become a luxury that only the rich can afford.”
Article 3
Article from a weekly news magazine
August 29 – The price of crude oil has jumped by 500% over the last decade as a decrease in supply has met with an increased demand. This demand has encouraged many new oil wells to launch in the Gulf of Mexico, and some American environmental groups have expressed concern that certain oil companies are not following the safest procedures, emphasizing that the companies are more concerned with the speed of extraction than the well-being of the ecosystem. Some scientists in the Gulf have called for an increase in safety regulations for oil companies drilling off the coast, but the companies warn that this may dramatically increase the cost of crude oil, at a time when many Americans are already struggling to pay the increased price.
Question #1:
Consider each of the following statements. Does the information in the three articles support the inference as stated?
- Politicians usually do not agree with one another on issues of global warming and fossil fuel consumption.
- An increase in worldwide demand for crude oil has made the oil companies safety standards’ fall.
- Dr. Goodman would likely support a public referendum on whether to require the oil companies to have better safety and ecological regulations.
- The actions of the oil companies have led some voters to reject measures it considers costly.
The answer is No for the first statement. The statement in question is not necessarily true, as we do not know what politicians “usually” do, and therefore this is not a valid conclusion just based on the information provided.
The answer is No for the second statement. This is not a correct cause/effect statement. There is nothing to support a direct link between the demand for oil and the oil companies’ safety standards. Remember that there is no evidence given that the safety standards have indeed fallen.
The answer is No for the third statement. In Article 2, Dr. Goodman is shown to have little faith in the public as the solution to the global warming issue, since the public has continually shot down measures it considered “costly.”
The answer is No for the fourth statement. No direct correlation is made between the actions of the oil companies and the votes cast by the public. Be careful not the conflate information from two separate articles.
Try out a solo adaptive session in the Grockit lobby to work uninterrupted on Integrated Reasoning questions, or join in a group game to share your newfound skills with other students!
