Critical Reasoning

theCodeToGMAT wrote:Yeasts capable of leavening bread are widespread, and in the many centuries during which the ancient Egyptians made only unleavened bread, such yeasts must frequently have been mixed into bread doughs accidentally. The Egyptians, however, did not discover leavened bread until about 3000 B.C. That discovery roughly coincided with the introduction of a wheat variety that was preferable to previous varieties because its edible kernel could be removed from the husk without first toasting the grain. Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest evidence that the two developments were causally related?

A. Even after the ancient Egyptians discovered leavened bread and the techniques for reliably producing it were well known, unleavened bread continued to be widely consumed.
B. Only when the Egyptians stopped the practice of toasting grain were their stonelined grain.toasting pits available for baking bread.
C. Heating a wheat kernel destroys its gluten, a protein that must be present in order for yeast to
leaven bread dough.
D. The new variety of wheat, which had a more delicate flavor because it was not toasted, was reserved for the consumption of high officials when it first began to be grown.
E. Because the husk of the new variety of wheat was more easily removed, flour made from it required less effort to produce.

OA is C

vinay1983 wrote:

theCodeToGMAT wrote:Yeasts capable of leavening bread are widespread, and in the many centuries during which the ancient Egyptians made only unleavened bread, such yeasts must frequently have been mixed into bread doughs accidentally. The Egyptians, however, did not discover leavened bread until about 3000 B.C. That discovery roughly coincided with the introduction of a wheat variety that was preferable to previous varieties because its edible kernel could be removed from the husk without first toasting the grain. Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest evidence that the two developments were causally related?

A. Even after the ancient Egyptians discovered leavened bread and the techniques for reliably producing it were well known, unleavened bread continued to be widely consumed.
B. Only when the Egyptians stopped the practice of toasting grain were their stonelined grain.toasting pits available for baking bread.
C. Heating a wheat kernel destroys its gluten, a protein that must be present in order for yeast to
leaven bread dough.
D. The new variety of wheat, which had a more delicate flavor because it was not toasted, was reserved for the consumption of high officials when it first began to be grown.
E. Because the husk of the new variety of wheat was more easily removed, flour made from it required less effort to produce.

OA is C

I think it is C, since they must have known the effect of yeasts on the dough only after they stopped heating/toasting the wheat. This coincided with the discovery of the new wheat variety.

I have some doubts about the source of this question. The reason I say this is because the opening phrase sounds incorrect. Also roasting or heating could have been used instead of toasting.


Never mind, just curious:)

What is the source?

lunarpower wrote:

[email protected] wrote:Hi,

This question is written in an odd way, in that the question itself tells you what logic to use. Sometimes CR questions ask you to focus on a particular entity or part of the argument, but they don't typically tell you what type of logic is used.

"Causality" is the idea that one thing causes another. It's a common-enough logic concept on the GMAT that several of your CR questions will be "built" on it. It's up to you to SPOT IT though. Here, you're told that the prompt is about causality, which is something the real GMAT likely won't do.

GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made.
Rich

--

I received a private message about this post.

It's true that prompt questions like this one are rare in GMAC's materials. But, fundamentally, it doesn't matter, because exactly the same task can be expressed with the specifics in the passage, rather than in the question.

E.g., consider the following 2 hypothetical problems.

1/
Xxxxxxxxxxxx blah blah blah. When A happened, B happened afterward.
Which of the following provides the strongest evidence of a causal relationship between A and B?

2/
Xxxxxxxxxxxx blah blah blah. When A happened, B happened afterward. Therefore, A must have caused B.
Which of the following most strengthens the argument above?

These are exactly the same. No difference at all whatsoever.
So, there's no sense in worrying about exactly where the logic is specified. Maybe it'll be in the passage; maybe it'll be in the question. Maybe some of both. At the end of the day, it's all the same.

Also, there are plenty of GMAC items in which the necessary logic is within the prompt question, rather than within the passage. In fact, if you open OG13 up to the critical reasoning chapter, the very first question (problem #1) provides a perfect example -- the question is four lines long, and mentions all sorts of essential specifics.

lunarpower wrote: There are some exceptions, but that's mostly what's on the LSAT section. If A then B, if not-C then not-B, therefore if A then C, etc. Because lawyers use that kind of reasoning all the time.

If you get too much into "LSAT mode", you simply won't be able to make these kinds of connections anymore. Your brain will be too busy trying to be a digital circuit.

lunarpower wrote:
...there are lots of intersections between the business and legal worlds, so having both skill sets is an asset.

It's like speaking 2 different languages. If you know both of them, you can facilitate communication between those who don't.