Critical Reasoning

Hi everyone,

I always have hard time when I see the word " Almost" in the Critical Reasoning questions. I always get this wrong. when you say " almost always" my understanding is that it doesnt mean always.
For example you say I almost made it but you didnt. So If " almost always" is same as "always " why the heck we need almost always?
Any thoughts on this?
I appreciate your responses.
Thanks,

Agree with you!
According to my understanding,
Almost always is not same as always.
It just means that you can't say for certain that the condition is true. It just means that, say, 99 out of 100 times something is going to happen. But still 1 out of 100 the other can happen.

Similarly, rarely doesnt mean never. You have to be very careful about it when you study the context.

If in your answers of an RC passage with these words, you have an answer that concludes that the author means always or never, then those answers are clearly wrong.

If you can get hold of Aristotle SC, question number 15 is a perfect example.

Thank you for your response. Here is the question that I am having difficulty with.
https://www.beatthegmat.com/lsat-cr-question-t77741.html
I would appreciate if you could provide your feedback.
Thank you!

On the same lines 2 words that cause me a lot of trouble are 'some' and 'many'. I just keep getting confused with options that contain these words.

mkarakum wrote:Thank you for your response. Here is the question that I am having difficulty with.
https://www.beatthegmat.com/lsat-cr-question-t77741.html
I would appreciate if you could provide your feedback.
Thank you!

You are correct that "almost always" doesn't mean "always", but wrong to fret about it too much. In the question, B is clearly a wrong answer - we cannot infer from the statements that driver's ed is the best way to reeducate drivers. it is presented as "a way", but is not compared to other methods.

I think your problem is less the handling of a single word here and there, and more to do with lack of confidence in your chosen answer. A is clearly a better answer, except for that little annoying part where "always almost" leaves some room for the remote possibility of reforming a driver. But the fact that our chosen answer seems to have a minor problem doesn't mean that we choose a clearly wrong answer. The correct answers are sometimes less than ideal, but are chosen for being the least worst of the answer choice presented. We choose A because B is clearly a worse answer.

It also means that we look for ways why A is indeed correct and the problem isn't really an issue:
The argument states that "Only if such drivers are likely to be made more responsible drivers ". Since the later sentence says that a driver is always almost impossible to reform, it means that while there's a remote chance of reforming a driver, this chance is always remote - i.e. you will never find a driver that is likely to be made a more responsible driver. Since no Driver thus meets the conditions for re-education, send them all to jail, which means that the argument as stated does indeed support A.

I have to say that this nitpicking is more LSAT and less GMAT. But the key here is to stand your ground and not let the question sway you. When going through the question, your initial reaction was probably: so according to this, the vast majority of drivers will go to jail". Look for an answer choice that says that or goes in that direction, and firmly eliminate those answer choices that are clearly wrong.

Geva@MasterGMAT wrote:

mkarakum wrote:Thank you for your response. Here is the question that I am having difficulty with.
https://www.beatthegmat.com/lsat-cr-question-t77741.html
I would appreciate if you could provide your feedback.
Thank you!

You are correct that "almost always" doesn't mean "always", but wrong to fret about it too much. In the question, B is clearly a wrong answer - we cannot infer from the statements that driver's ed is the best way to reeducate drivers. it is presented as "a way", but is not compared to other methods.

I think your problem is less the handling of a single word here and there, and more to do with lack of confidence in your chosen answer. A is clearly a better answer, except for that little annoying part where "always almost" leaves some room for the remote possibility of reforming a driver. But the fact that our chosen answer seems to have a minor problem doesn't mean that we choose a clearly wrong answer. The correct answers are sometimes less than ideal, but are chosen for being the least worst of the answer choice presented. We choose A because B is clearly a worse answer.

It also means that we look for ways why A is indeed correct and the problem isn't really an issue:
The argument states that "Only if such drivers are likely to be made more responsible drivers ". Since the later sentence says that a driver is always almost impossible to reform, it means that while there's a remote chance of reforming a driver, this chance is always remote - i.e. you will never find a driver that is likely to be made a more responsible driver. Since no Driver thus meets the conditions for re-education, send them all to jail, which means that the argument as stated does indeed support A.

I have to say that this nitpicking is more LSAT and less GMAT. But the key here is to stand your ground and not let the question sway you. When going through the question, your initial reaction was probably: so according to this, the vast majority of drivers will go to jail". Look for an answer choice that says that or goes in that direction, and firmly eliminate those answer choices that are clearly wrong.

Hi Geva Why is answer choice C wrong for this question.

mundasingh123 wrote: Hi Geva Why is answer choice C wrong for this question.

I guess my answer is |why do you think it is right? where in the argument does it support the conclusion that reeducation is not harsh enough?

Geva@MasterGMAT wrote:

mundasingh123 wrote: Hi Geva Why is answer choice C wrong for this question.

I guess my answer is |why do you think it is right? where in the argument does it support the conclusion that reeducation is not harsh enough?

Why Not C

Since Reckless drivers even after having to go through Driver Re-Education do not become responsible drivers, cant we infer that Driver Re-Education is not harsh enough a Punishment to deter the drivers from committing the offense again.
_________________
I Seek Explanations Not Answers

Hi Geva, I have quoted above the post that i have made in the respective thread . I inferred that Re-education would not be a harsh enough punishment.

mundasingh123 wrote:

Geva@MasterGMAT wrote:

mundasingh123 wrote: Hi Geva Why is answer choice C wrong for this question.

I guess my answer is |why do you think it is right? where in the argument does it support the conclusion that reeducation is not harsh enough?

Why Not C

Since Reckless drivers even after having to go through Driver Re-Education do not become responsible drivers, cant we infer that Driver Re-Education is not harsh enough a Punishment to deter the drivers from committing the offense again.
_________________
I Seek Explanations Not Answers

Hi Geva, I have quoted above the post that i have made in the respective thread . I inferred that Re-education would not be a harsh enough punishment.

I think you're adding information. If C had said "harsh enough to deter the drivers from doing it again", I'd agree with you: If driver's ed does not reform the drivers, we can infer that it is not a harsh enough punishment to deter them from committing the offense again. ((I have my qualms here as well, but for the sake of argument, let's say that I agree).

As is, though, C just leaves it at an open "harsh enough punishment", but does not specify harsh enough to do what: harsh enough to scare the driver into becoming a more responsible one? Or harsh enough to scare other drivers from doing the same thing? Or harsh enough to exact justice on the offending driver?
The argument supports the first explanation, but not the last two - without having C specify what the harsh punishment is supposed to achieve, it cannot be inferred from the argument as given.