-
Target Test Prep 20% Off Flash Sale is on! Code: FLASH20
Redeem
Weaken the Conclusion: Breaking Down a GMATPrep CR Problem
This week, were 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 Republics currency, the pundra, was weak: its value was unusually low relative to the worlds most stable currencies. Both times a weak pundra made Darfirs manufactured products a bargain on world markets, and Darfirs 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, Darfirs 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 countrys currency is strong or the rise in exports is significant.
D) Those countries whose manufactured products compete with Darfirs on the world market all currently have stable currencies.
E) A sharp improvement in the efficiency of Darfirs manufacturing plants would make Darfirs 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
Ill translate this into real words, but your notes shouldnt 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 Ds 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 doesnt mean itll 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 havent 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, lets 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 arent sure (lets say youre debating whether a choice is S or /), then put both symbols down (S/) and move on. Dont get hung up on any one answer choice. (Especially this one we want a W, so it doesnt matter whether the category is S or /. Theyre both wrong!)
Go try that right now with all five answer choices before you continue reading. Ill 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 Ill put both down and move on.
B) After several decades of operating well below peak capacity, Darfirs manufacturing sector is now operating at near-peak levels.
So that means that theyre 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. Thats 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 ones looking like it could weaken the situation.
C) The economy of a country experiencing a rise in exports will become healthier only if the countrys 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 wordings a little confusing, so Im not going to think about it anymore Im 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 Darfirs 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 Darfirs manufacturing plants would make Darfirs 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.
Heres what my answer sheet looks like:
A) S/
B) W
C) W/
D) /
E) /
Now, evaluate. Its 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 werent 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 doesnt 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:
- Read the question stem first in order to determine the question type and (possibly) the conclusion or something about the conclusion
- If step 1 didnt 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.
- Quickly assign S, W, or / to each answer choice. If youre not sure, assign two categories and move on; dont get hung up on one choice.
- Evaluate your labels for each choice. Eliminate those that definitely cant 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.
Recent Articles
Archive
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009