Critical Reasoning

Testluv wrote:

xcusemeplz2009 wrote:thanks testluv
one more thing is out of scope type ans not correct for except type question?.
suppose the q stem asks all of the following is weakening/strnthng/mbt except....
if out of 5 choices 3 are weakening/strnthng or mbt
one is out of scope and last one is may be strenthening instead of weakening or may be weakening rather strengthening , or may be Cud be false rather mBT then which one to pick .....

how GMAT gives the option will it give a 4 favouring and one not favouring OR 3 favouring , 1 not favouring and 1 out of scope option....

In the given CR i find 4 and 5 as out of scope as production and cost is not disccused...2nd as cud be false...
so as per my inf B has to be the ans

pls clarify ........

So, the question stem is "could be true EXCEPT?"

In this question, the four wrong answers are things that could be true. The further outside the scope of the stimulus answer choices stray, the less likely they are things that the stimulus will have proven necessarily false; and the more likely it is that they are things that could be true.

The right answer here is something that must be false. In order for the passage to have proven something necessarily false, that thing will have to lie directly within the scope of the stimulus.

Everything in the passage is necessarily true. Anything and everything outside the passage could be true or could be false.

There are three levels of truth:

Necessarily true
Possibly true/possibly false
Necessarily false

If something is only possibly true, then it is not necessarily true. And because it is not necessarily true, it could also be false. Likewise, anything merely only possibly false, because it is not necessarily false, could also be true. In other words: could be true = could be false

Must be false is the opposite of could be true.
Must be true is the opposite of could be false.

Here's a post where I discuss this issue:

https://www.beatthegmat.com/monster-of-a ... 47312.html

...BUT I don't think I've ever seen a "could be TRUE EXCEPT" question on the GMAT.

In this particular question, I think either it is a bad one or else there is a transcription error. The passage tells us there were 10 nylon sterilzations but then answer choice A (the only one I've looked at so far) refers to "the 50 nylon sterilizations."

Testluv wrote:

raghavakumar85 wrote:Thanks Testluv,

Answer choices to strengthen/weaken questions are always facts (the question stem will say "which of the following if true.."). Any fact that makes the conclusion more likely is a strengthener (and any answer choice that makes the conclusion less likely is a weakener).

However, these facts will usually operate through the assumption: a fact that tends to verify the assumption is a strengthener and will make the conclusion more likely to hold while a weakener will tend to refute the assumption, and will make the conclusion less likely to be true.

We can also use denial test in weaken and strengthen questions but it works a bit differently. If you are not sure if a choice is strengthening, deny it. If the denied choice clearly weakens, then that answer choice (prior to your denying it) is a strengthener.

It works because, often, it is easier to see what effect the denied choice has on the argument than it was to see what effect the original choice did.

i am not clear about the red part of your explanation can u provide an eg applying the same funda...

xcusemeplz2009 wrote:

Testluv wrote:

xcusemeplz2009 wrote:thanks testluv
one more thing is out of scope type ans not correct for except type question?.
suppose the q stem asks all of the following is weakening/strnthng/mbt except....
if out of 5 choices 3 are weakening/strnthng or mbt
one is out of scope and last one is may be strenthening instead of weakening or may be weakening rather strengthening , or may be Cud be false rather mBT then which one to pick .....

how GMAT gives the option will it give a 4 favouring and one not favouring OR 3 favouring , 1 not favouring and 1 out of scope option....

In the given CR i find 4 and 5 as out of scope as production and cost is not disccused...2nd as cud be false...
so as per my inf B has to be the ans

pls clarify ........

So, the question stem is "could be true EXCEPT?"

In this question, the four wrong answers are things that could be true. The further outside the scope of the stimulus answer choices stray, the less likely they are things that the stimulus will have proven necessarily false; and the more likely it is that they are things that could be true.

The right answer here is something that must be false. In order for the passage to have proven something necessarily false, that thing will have to lie directly within the scope of the stimulus.

Everything in the passage is necessarily true. Anything and everything outside the passage could be true or could be false.

There are three levels of truth:

Necessarily true
Possibly true/possibly false
Necessarily false

If something is only possibly true, then it is not necessarily true. And because it is not necessarily true, it could also be false. Likewise, anything merely only possibly false, because it is not necessarily false, could also be true. In other words: could be true = could be false

Must be false is the opposite of could be true.
Must be true is the opposite of could be false.

Here's a post where I discuss this issue:

https://www.beatthegmat.com/monster-of-a ... 47312.html

...BUT I don't think I've ever seen a "could be TRUE EXCEPT" question on the GMAT.

In this particular question, I think either it is a bad one or else there is a transcription error. The passage tells us there were 10 nylon sterilzations but then answer choice A (the only one I've looked at so far) refers to "the 50 nylon sterilizations."

so we can conclude that in an MBT CR
the ansewrs can be catogrized as 1 necessarily true , others may be are possibly true or necessarily false ....
hence there is no out of scope type option...

xcusemeplz2009 wrote:

Testluv wrote:

raghavakumar85 wrote:Thanks Testluv,

Answer choices to strengthen/weaken questions are always facts (the question stem will say "which of the following if true.."). Any fact that makes the conclusion more likely is a strengthener (and any answer choice that makes the conclusion less likely is a weakener).

However, these facts will usually operate through the assumption: a fact that tends to verify the assumption is a strengthener and will make the conclusion more likely to hold while a weakener will tend to refute the assumption, and will make the conclusion less likely to be true.

We can also use denial test in weaken and strengthen questions but it works a bit differently. If you are not sure if a choice is strengthening, deny it. If the denied choice clearly weakens, then that answer choice (prior to your denying it) is a strengthener.

It works because, often, it is easier to see what effect the denied choice has on the argument than it was to see what effect the original choice did.

i am not clear about the red part of your explanation can u provide an eg applying the same funda...

The answer choices to strengthen/weaken questions are facts.

If it is a strengthen question, you are looking for a fact that backs that assumption up, tends to verify it or confirm the assumption; therefore, this will also make the conclusion more likely.

If it is a weaken, you are looking for a fact that attaks the assumption, tends to refute it or disconfirm it; therefore, this will also make the conclusion less likely.

Testluv wrote:

xcusemeplz2009 wrote: The answer choices to strengthen/weaken questions are facts.

If it is a strengthen question, you are looking for a fact that backs that assumption up, tends to verify it or confirm the assumption; therefore, this will also make the conclusion more likely.

If it is a weaken, you are looking for a fact that attaks the assumption, tends to refute it or disconfirm it; therefore, this will also make the conclusion less likely.

The number of aircraft collisions on the ground is increasing because of the substantial increase in the number of flights operated by the airlines. Many of the fatalities that occur in such collisions are caused not by the collision itself, but by an inherent flaw in the cabin design of most aircraft, in which seats, by restricting access to emergency exits, impede escape. Therefore, to reduce the total number of fatalities that result annually from such collisions, the airlines should be required to remove all seats that restrict access to emergency exits.

Which one of the following proposals, if implemented together with the proposal made in the passage, would improve the prospects for achieving the stated objective of reducing fatalities?
(A) The airlines should be required, when buying new planes, to buy only planes with unrestricted access to emergency exits.
(B) The airlines should not be permitted to increase further the number of flights in order to offset the decrease in the number of seats on each aircraft.
(C) Airport authorities should be required to streamline their passenger check-in procedures to accommodate the increased number of passengers served by the airlines.
(D) Airport authorities should be required to refine security precautions by making them less conspicuous without making them less effective.
(E) The airlines should not be allowed to increase the ticket price for each passenger to offset the decrease in the number of seats on each aircraft.

how to reach an answer by appyling the rule u mentioned

raghavakumar85 wrote:No, I haven't seen questions of these kind in GMAT materials. But the approach is good. Now let me put all pearls into one shell.

Inference / Must Be True :
1.Four wrong answers could or must be false.
2.Denial test - If the choice were false, then the argument would also be false. Since it is asking us to infer from te passage, the answer has to be true and so it is the answer.
3.Choices that are "out of scope" of the argument could be true (?? Dont know if i am right - How to use POE here?).

raghavakumar85 wrote:Yes, Thank you!

So, The choices that are out of scope could be true or could be false. It implies that the more the choice moves out of the frame of argument, the less is the chance for it to become a MUST BE TRUE! I think i got it now.

For the rest of the options that are in scope, I would use denial test to check if the argument is made false by the choice. The choices that have no -ve effect on the argument will be eliminated and Finally, Finally, the choice that makes the argument fall will be the correct answer for MBT and Inference. Ah! What a journey!

Testluv wrote:I would add, that you don't necessarily want to be using POE though.

Oftentimes, if you analyze the stimulus properly and resist the temptation to approach the answer choices prematurely you can, by looking for the connections between sentences, arrive at a deduction.

raghavakumar85 wrote:

Testluv wrote:I would add, that you don't necessarily want to be using POE though.

Oftentimes, if you analyze the stimulus properly and resist the temptation to approach the answer choices prematurely you can, by looking for the connections between sentences, arrive at a deduction.

Testluv,

I did not understand the sentences in bold. Can you explain it clearly?

Testluv wrote:

punitkaur wrote:Antoine: The alarming fact is that among children aged 19 years and younger, the number taking antipsychotic medicines soared 73 percent in the last four years. That is greater than the increase in the number of adults taking antipsychotic medicines during the same period.

Lucy: But the use of antipsychotic drugs by adults is considered normal at the current rate of 11 adults per 1,000 taking the drugs. In contrast, the number of children on antipsychotic medication last year was 6.6 per 1,000 children.

Lucy's argument relies on the assumption that ______.

A)normal levels of antipsychotic drug use are rarely exceeded.

B)the percentage of adults taking antipsychotic medication is always higher than the percentage of children on such medication.

C)the use of antipsychotic medication in children is no different from the use of such medications in adults.

D)Antoine is not consciously distorting the statistics he presents.

E)a rapid increase in the number of children taking antipsychotic drugs generates more fear of random violence by adolescents than does knowledge of the absolute number of children on such medications.

OA is C. While I can't find anything wrong with the OA, my question is whats wrong with D?

Although Lucy is not directly using the statistics presented, she has to assume that they are accurate to counter argue. so for that she has to believe in Antoine which means D.

Let`s consider two important general strategies:

-in assumption questions, choices that deal with someone`s motivations, or possible biases are almost always wrong (they can only be right if the argument was about someone`s motivations, or possible biases)

-and, in arguments, we always have to take arguers` evidence as true, as `given`. The denial of choice D-the idea that Antoine WAS consciously distorting his evidence-suggests Antoine was lying. But Lucy is taking it as a fact because Antoine told her to ("..the alarming fact"...).

If we took this fact away-if we denied it-it`s not that Lucy`s argument falls apart; instead, Lucy has no reason to make the argument.

You can also deny choice C to check whether it is correct. Lucy thinks she can judge whether the kids and teenagers` rate of 6.6 per 1,000 is safe by evaluating it against the `normal` adult rate of 11 per 1,000.

If we deny choice C, we have: children taking antipsychotics IS different from adults taking antipsychotics. Then, it is clear that Lucy can`t really use these stats to say there is nothing to worry about the rate of children taking antipsychotics. So, she is definitely relying on this assumption.