Critical Reasoning

Ronald: According to my analysis of the national economy, housing prices should not increase during the next six months unless interest rates drop significantly.
Mark: I disagree. One year ago, when interest rates last fell significantly, housing prices did not increase at all.
It can be inferred from the conversation above that Mark has interpreted Ronald's statement to mean that
(A) housing prices will rise only if interest rates fall
(B) if interest rates fall, housing prices must rise
(C) interest rates and housing prices tend to rise and fall together
(D) interest rates are the only significant economic factor affecting housing prices
(E) interest rates are likely to fall significantly in the next six months

I know this problem was previously discussed, but i still don't get what the question is asking?
please help BTGers!

IMO B
Ronald says that unless interest rates drop significantly, housing prices should not rise.
Mark replies: He doesn't agree because last time interest rates fell and prices didn't increase.
Thus he interprets Ronald is saying that if interest rates fall, housing prices will rise...

Thanks, Cans. the problem was that i didn't get the question stem...
and according to your thinking, i assume that i should approach this type of question from the Mark's side. what i mean is if Mark disagrees with Ronald, it'll be enough to negate the Mark's response logically.

there are questions even whose explanations are hard to get...

Below given CR with exact same question stem...


Bill: Smoke-detecting fire alarms can save lives. I believe that every apartment in this city should be required by law to be equipped with a smoke detector.
Joe: I disagree with your proposal. Smoke detectors are just as important for safety in private houses as they are in apartment.
From this exchange, it can be inferred that Joe has interpreted Bill's statement to mean that
(A) the city should be responsible for providing smoke detectors for apartments
(B) residences outside the city should not be equipped with smoke detectors
(C) only apartments should be equipped with smoke detectors
(D) the risk of fire is not as great in private houses as it is in apartments
(E) the rate of death by fire is unusually high in the city in question

OA is C.

This is an LSAT type of question known as "misinterpretation." I have never seen one of these on the GMAT. But hey, you never know what you will see and these can be fun to try IF THEY ARE WELL WRITTEN.

On these questions you are not looking for what the 1st person actually said and you are not looking for the 2nd person's response you are actually looking for what the second person THOUGHT the first person said.

So, we have to figure out what Mark is responding to. What did he think Ronald said?

Mark is showing us that interests rates fell at one point without an increase in housing prices.

So what is Mark trying to negate?
He is trying to show that you can have a decrease in interest rates without an increase in housing prices. This only makes sense as a response to "EVERY decrease in interest rates is followed by an increase in housing prices." Choice B says this pretty much exactly.

This is not what Ronald said, but it is what Mark misinterpreted and thought Ronald said. That is what you are looking for.


Again, you will likely never see this on the GMAT, but learning to reason is learning to reason and that is a good thing.

Hope that helps Hoji!

Your second question can be approached the same way.

What does Joe mistakenly respond to? Joe says smoke detectors are just as important in private houses as in apartments. So now ask yourself what would this make sense as a reply to?

Well it would only make sense if Bill had said that smoke detectors should only be in apartments and not in private houses. Of course this is not what Bill said, but it is what joe is responding to.

Answer choice C says this -- "(C) only apartments should be equipped with smoke detectors."