Critical Reasoning

Source: Kaplan 800

A recent university study indicated that students who receive full scholarships tend to maintain higher grade point averages than do students who must take out loans or work to finance school. The study concluded that scholarships enable students to achieve high grade point averages by alleviating the stress related to financial concerns and freeing up students time to study more.

The study s conclusion depends on which of the following assumptions?

A. Students who take out loans maintain higher grade point averages than those who work to finance school

B. Finance-related stress affects student performance in a manner similar to that of restricted study time.

C. Students who must work to pay for their studies cannot maintain high grade point averages

D. High grade point averages were not the primary criterion upon which the scholarship awards were based

E. Controlling stress level is less important to student performance than is intensive studying.

OA: D

Stimulus does not talk about the basis of scholarship or criteria of scholarship. Why is this answer?

The argument says that reception of full scholarships-->higher grade point
if it is other way round then the conclusion will not stand good.
option D eliminates that..hence its correct

I am not getting it.

full scholarships (cause)--> higher grade point (effect)

High grade point averages were not the primary criterion upon which the scholarship awards were based => It could be but How it can be the assumption. I could not understood.

according to "GMAT Critical Reasoning Bible"
In causal reasoning, the correct answer to an assumption question will normally fit one of the following categories.
1. Eliminate an alternative cause for the stated effect
2. Shows that when the cause occurs, the effects occurs
3. Shows that when the cause does not occur, the effect does not occur
4. Eliminates the possibility that the stated relationship is reversed
5. Show that the data used to make the causal statement are accurate, or eliminates possible problems with the data

Explanation from book

akhilesh, i agree with you.I think the answer should be B.If pos can you plz confirm the OA.

akhilesh, there are some fundamental concpets about causual reasoning that you need to know.
When you have a case: Cause -> Effect
There are some ways it can be strengthened:
1) there are no alternate cause to the effect. ie. The cause listed is the only one that can lead to the effect.
2) Whenever cause occurs, effect occurs
3) when cause does not occur, effect does not occur.
4) effect does not lead to cause
5) data validation (this means that the data used to consuct the surveys is correct)

Now coming to our question: the study concludes that scholarships cause students to achieve high GPA
ie. Scholarships(cause) -> high GPA( effect)

now wat if, the scholarship board tends to pick only high gpa scoring students for the scholarship? Then when a person looks at the list he finds that all scholarships relate to high GPA's. So they think that scholarships cause high GPA's but it need not be true since a board can select only high GPA students for scholarships. If this turns out to be true then the conclusion falls apart. Thus the author needs to assume that the board was fair and it did not select only high gpa students for the scholarship. Thus it strengthens the conclusion and hence D is correct.

Hope this helps!

Assumption is something which will bridge the gap between the stated facts and conclusion or it is something which will remove any alternate reasoning there by proving the conclution. Here it is the second case

for cause-reason type question if we can show that the reason actually causes 'cause' then the conclusion does not hold good any more.
So ,if higher score is the only criteria for full scholarship,scholarship cannot be the cause behind higher score.

option D clearly says that the cause -effect relation ship is not other way round.

None of the other options satisfies this criteria.

A. Talks abt 'finance school '...not mentioned in premise
B. This is the conclusion ..not assumption
C. This speaks only about 'who must work to pay for their studies'..does not considering the students with loan...partial explanation
E. irrelevent

Thanks to both of you.

I would like to summarize my understanding

full scholarship (cause) --> enables -> higher grade point (effect)

If scholarship based on high GPA, then one can think that scholarship causes high GPA and hence, reason would be something else other than what is mentioned in stimulus. This is an alternate reason and hence weaken.

So our assumption is wrong => scholarship based on high GPA

Hence, high GPA was not the criteria for scholarship. Am I right?

As per Powerscore CR Bible there are 2 types of Assumption question, Supporter or defender.

In a supporter question new information is introduced in the conclusion.

In a defender question no new information is introduced, so you have to defend the conclusion by eliminating alternate causes for the conclusion.

Conclusion is Scholarship ---> High GPA; however if I were to say people with

high GPA --->>scholarships then as described by fibbonnaci my conclusion is weakened. howeve; if a choice eliminates alternate explanation to the conclusion then it is the correct choice. So C is correct.

To answer your question --- > yes you are correct.

@ vineet There are a lot of flaws in your statements.
An assumption is never introduced in the conclusion. An assumption is the connecting link between the premise and conclusion.
A supporter assumption exists for a weak argument. ie. There is a gap between the premise and conclusion and the gap needs to be established to draw the conclusion clearly.
On the other hand defender assumption is for a very strong argument. The author tries to protect the status quo of the passage.
So in effect the approach depends on the strength of the argument. You will never find an author making a defender assumption for a weak argument.
And no author can place a defender and supporting assumption in one stimulus.
FYI, C does not eliminate alternate explanation. If you read the passage closely, you will find that the author does not mention that students who take loans do not achieve high GPA. The author clearly states a comparison that students who obtain scholarship get higher GPA's than do students who take loans. There is a possibility that students who take loans get 3.7/4 wheras scholarship students get 4.0/4. In this case 3.7 is a high gpa too and at the same time it qualifies for the statement made by the author. When dealing with comparison you got to be careful to just take wat the author mentions and not convert it into your own terms. Answer choice C contains flaws and hence is not correct!!!

Whenever you see an argument that uses as evidence a comparative study, make sure that the two groups being compared differ only with respect to the characterstic under consideration.


We conducted a 2-year study of 1000 recreational cyclists, some of whom always wore reflective clothing while cycling (group A). These 1000 cyclists were involved in 600 collisions with motor vehicles during the study, and the cyclists who did not always wear reflective clothing while cycling (group B) accounted for 85% of these accidents. The results of our study support our recommendation that cyclists wear reflective clothing to minimize the risk of suffering a traffic accident while practicing this healthy sport.

Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument above EXCEPT

(A) The cyclists in group B outnumbered those in group A by a 2 to 1 margin.
(B) Cyclists in group A were much more likely to use bicycle lights and helmets than those in group B.
(C) Cyclists in group B were more likely to cycle on well-lit highways amid other traffic than were cyclists in group A, who generally stuck to bicycle paths that are poorly lit.
(D) Cyclists in group B were more likely to be stopped for careless driving of a motor vehicle than were those in group A.
(E) On average, cyclists in group A maintained their bicycle brakes in much better working order than did those in group B.

Hi Kevin,

Is the answer to the above question D.

Thanks,
Ash

The answer is not D

hi kevin, u ques is really confusing. i think u ques meant " which of the following is not an assumption"?

We conducted a 2-year study of 1000 recreational cyclists, some of whom always wore reflective clothing while cycling (group A). These 1000 cyclists were involved in 600 traffic accidents during the study, and the cyclists who did not always wear reflective clothing while cycling (group B) accounted for 85% of these accidents. The results of our study support our recommendation that cyclists wear reflective clothing to minimize the risk of suffering a traffic accident while practicing this healthy sport.

Each of the following, if true, either constitutes or counters a valid objection to the argument above EXCEPT

(A) The cyclists in group B outnumbered those in group A by a 2 to 1 margin. it shouldnt be the case as you told the two groups should differ onlywith respect to the characterstic under consideration i.e. wearing reflective clothing.
(B) Cyclists in group A were much more likely to use bicycle lights and helmets than those in group B. If cyclists are using headlights they will reduce the chances of accidents but i dont know how helmets will affect. we can say that this might be a reason that grp A were less involved in the accidents.
(C) Cyclists in group B were more likely to cycle on well-lit highways amid other traffic than were cyclists in group A, who generally stuck to bicycle paths that are poorly lit. since cyclists in group B were mostly with the traffic whereas grp A cyclists were in cycle lane so Bgrp B cyclists were more involved in accidents.
(D) Cyclists in group B were no more likely to be stopped for careless driving of a motor vehicle than were those in group A. all cyclists are equally good.
(E) On average, cyclists in group A spent 40% more time cycling per week than did cyclists in group B. since these grps are in study so they should have spent equal time.


in ques "some cyclists" is mentioned so ill go with E.

@kevin,

i think your ques is.. constitutes an objection=== not an assumption & counters an objection=== assumption.

still my ans is E.

IMO A - what is the OA?