Tackling a GMATPrep CR Evaluate Problem
This week, were going to discuss Evaluate critical reasoning problems. Evaluate what? Were trying to evaluate an assumption the author uses to draw a conclusion, so these Evaluate questions are a subset of the Assumption Family of questions.
Lets say were given this argument:
In order to increase its profits, MillCo plans to reduce costs by laying off any non-essential employees.
Does that sound like a good plan? Profits equal revenues minus costs. Whats MillCo assuming in claiming that laying off non-essential employees will result in increased profits? For one thing, MillCo is assuming that revenues wont drop as much as or more than the expected cost savings; if that occurred, MillCos profits wouldnt increase.
An Evaluate question might say something like what would be most useful to know in order to evaluate MillCos plan? A correct answer might read:
Whether revenues will be affected adversely enough to threaten MillCos profit structure.
Lets say that answer is no: MillCos revenues wont be affected adversely enough. In that case, MillCos argument is strengthened. If, on the other hand, the answer is yes, MillCos revenues will be affected adversely enough, then MillCos argument is weakened. This answer, then, is designed to test the assumption; it helps to determine whether the assumption is valid. It does not tell us, however, that the assumption definitely is, or is not, valid.
We can pretend were scientists testing a hypothesis we devise some test to help us determine whether the hypothesis is more or less likely to be true. The authors claim is the hypothesis. The correct answer should be structured in such a way that there are at least two possible paths one direction will make the argument a little more likely to be true (validate the hypothesis) and the other direction will make the argument a little less likely to be true (invalidate the hypothesis).
The incorrect answers will also be presented in this two paths format, with one key distinction: whether the response to the answer is "yes" or "no" makes no difference at all to the claim we're trying to test. What if we had this answer choice?
Whether MillCo might reduce its costs by eliminating any contract workers.
If MillCo can reduce costs by eliminating contract workers, that doesnt tell us anything more about whether laying off non-essential employees will help to increase profits. If, on the other hand, Millco cannot reduce costs by eliminating contract workers we still dont know anything more about whether the plan regarding the employees will work.
This answer choice is trying to distract us by offering a different way to increase profits but we arent asked to find alternate ways to increase profits. Were asked to evaluate whether the existing argument is valid.
If you havent yet, read this article before we try our GMATPrep problem. Set your timer for 2 minutes!
*Columnist: People should avoid using a certain artificial fat that has been touted as a resource for those whose medical advisers have advised them to reduce their fat intake. Although the artificial fat, which can be used in place of fat in food preparation, has none of the negative health effects of fat, it does have a serious drawback: it absorbs certain essential vitamins, thereby preventing them from being used by the body.In evaluating the columnists position, it would be most useful to determine which of the following?
(A) Whether increasing ones intake of the vitamins can compensate for the effects of the artificial fat
(B) Whether the vitamins that the artificial fat absorbs are present in foods that contain the fat
(C) Whether having an extremely low fat intake for an extended period can endanger the health
(D) Whether there are any foods that cannot be prepared using the artificial fat as a substitute for other fats
(E) Whether people are generally able to detect differences in taste between foods prepared using the artificial fat and foods that are similar except for the use of other fats
Okay, now that youve got an answer, lets use our 4-step CR process.
Step 1: Identify the Question
First, we read the question stem:
In evaluating the columnists position, it would be most useful to determine which of the following?
The key identifying language is pretty straightforward on this one: in evaluating and most useful to determine. This language reflects an Evaluate problem type.
Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument
In this argument, the first sentence tells us an opinion: the columnist thinks we shouldnt use this artificial fat. The second sentence tells us two facts, but these facts are competing theyre not on the same side. First, the columnist acknowledges that the artificial fat doesnt have any of the bad effects of real fat, BUT it does have its own bad effect: it prevents us from absorbing certain essential vitamins.
Your notes might look something like this (though there are lots of ways to write notes!):
C: dont use AF
AF > real fat in some ways
BUT AF prevents absorb some vit
Note that I used abbreviations. AF = artificial fat. The c with the circle around it indicates the conclusion. I used the greater than symbol to mean better than.
What does this mean in normal, non-GMAT language? The columnist knows that this fat has a serious drawback and therefore concludes we just shouldnt use it. Whats the columnist assuming? That theres no way to fix or get around that drawback if there were, then maybe we wouldnt have to avoid using the artificial fat.
Step 3: State the Goal
As we discussed earlier, our goal here is to find a two-path statement that will test one of the authors assumptions. If that assumption is valid, then the argument will be at least a little bit stronger. If the assumption is not valid, then the argument will be at least a little bit weaker.
We havent discussed this yet, but wed also want to remind ourselves what kinds of tempting traps were likely to see on questions of this type. Evaluate traps typically address some part of the premises but dont actually address the conclusion, or they try to address some alternate way of reaching the conclusion. The answers look like theyre relevant (because they address something in the argument) but they dont actually address the right thing: what additional information could help to test some assumption that is already in the argument.
Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right
(A) Whether increasing ones intake of the vitamins can compensate for the effects of the artificial fat
If the answer is yes: then we could eat the AF and still get our vitamins. That weakens the columnists claim.
If the answer is no: then the columnists claim is a little bit better. Possibly theres still another work-around thatll let us eat the AF and still get our vitamins, but a no answer here knocks down one possible way.
This one looks good so far; leave it in.
(B) Whether the vitamins that the artificial fat absorbs are present in foods that contain the fat
If the answer is yes: then wait the point of this is that people will replace fatty foods with foods that have this AF, and then the vitamin absorption problem is with this AF stuff. We might want to know whether the AF foods have these vitamins, but there's no problem with the regular-fat foods containing these vitamins.
If the answer is no: Ditto. Were talking about the wrong thing here the fatty foods rather than the foods with AF.
Cross this one off.
(C) Whether having an extremely low fat intake for an extended period can endanger the health
If the answer is yes: then people should make sure not to have extremely low fat intake but wait how does artificial fat play into this? Im not sure. Nor does the argument indicate anything about extremely low fat intake. The argument only talks about people who need to reduce their fat intake.
If the answer is no: then people dont have to worry about getting enough fat but again, this whole artificial fat and vitamin thing isnt impacted at all here.
Cross this one off.
(D) Whether there are any foods that cannot be prepared using the artificial fat as a substitute for other fats
If the answer is yes: then people wont be able to have the AF in those foods. So what? The argument doesnt claim that all foods have to be able to be prepared with this AF stuff.
If the answer is no: then people can have AF in anything that contains regular fat. Again, so what?
Cross this one off.
(E) Whether people are generally able to detect differences in taste between foods prepared using the artificial fat and foods that are similar except for the use of other fats
If the answer is yes: then people might be less likely to use the AF if it tastes funny (or more likely if it tastes better!). But that doesnt affect whether we're getting our vitamins.
If the answer is no: then people wont know whether something contains the AF or regular fat. But that doesnt address the issue about the vitamins and whether people can still get the vitamins they need if they eat food with AF in it.
Cross this one off. The correct answer is A.
Key Takeaways for Solving Evaluate CR Problems
(1) Know how to recognize this type. The question stem will likely use some form of the word evaluate, determine, or useful / important to know.
(2) Know what to do with Evaluate questions. Find the conclusion and identify the main supporting premise(s), then brainstorm assumptions. Our goal is to find an answer that tests an assumption. Were trying to test the authors claim as scientists we test a hypothesis, and the answer could go either way (could make the claim more or less likely to be true, depending upon the answer to our test).
(3) The correct answer will be able to both slightly strengthen and slightly weaken the hypothesis, depending upon whether the information in that choice goes "one way" or "the other." Incorrect answers might only strengthen the conclusion, or they might address a premise without affecting the conclusion, or they might distract us by trying to talk about some other aspect of something in the argument that doesnt actually relate to the conclusion.
* GMATPrep questions courtesy of the Graduate Management Admissions Council. Usage of this question does not imply endorsement by GMAC.