Several CR questions which i am clueless about

This topic has expert replies
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:24 am

Several CR questions which i am clueless about

by np4s » Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:39 pm
Question 1:

Studies show that in 70% of traffic acidents, at least one driver involved is less than 10 miles from home, when accidents occur. Thus drivers do have a tendency to drive incautiously, when loser home, reiterating the finding that places where people feel safest are the places where they are at greatest risk.

The author has based his assertion on the false assumption that:
A) Familiarity of surroundings gives them a sense of false security.
B) The other 30% of accidents happen far from home.
C) Drivers drive rashly only in familiar surroundings.
D) People incur more risks on home turf.
E) A distance of ten miles cannot be considered home.


Question 2:
Liquor commercials must be banned. They tend to influence the young. The feature during prime time viewing hours.

The strongest reason that lends further credibility to the contention is:
A) Most commercials glamorize consumption of liquor.
B) Most commercials associate liquor consumption with the 'success' quotient.
C) Most commercials deliberately ignore the health factor.
D) Most commercials rake in huge revenues.
E) Most liquor commercials feature attractive women.


Question 3:
A marital counselor concluded that couples with similar sleeping and waking patterns can be helped from placing their marriages in jeopardy.

Which of the reasons can prove him wrong?
A) Couples with similar sleeping and waking patterns do engage in arguments.
B) Couples in a not so happy arrangement often choose to adopt different sleeping and waking patterns.
C) Couples always argue either way: Its an irreversible trend.
D) Couples opt for different working hours or spill over hours.
E) Couples have always had a certain commonality of 'pet peeves'.


Question 4:
Professor Giles gives good grades to such of those students who have tutored under him. After all, Alan, Mike, Lisa and Susan who scored excellent grades, studied under him.

A critique of the logic of the above statement would bring up the fact that the speaker:

A) Was rushing into a hasty decision.
B) Had failed to define 'good grades'.
C) Has an axe to grind with the professor.
D) Considered such trends rather blase.
E) Fails to explain the professor's motive.


Question 5:
Marketing campaigns must not focus on 'high end' brand promotion; because those who cannot afford exclusive brands too will be lured into spending beyond their capacity.

Restraint is an integral aspect of judicial selection, is ratified by:
A) One shouldn't celebrate a festival, when one's neighbour is in distress.
B) Everybody should use mid segment products.
C) Desserts should not be served, if one amount the partying group is diabetic.
D) Freedom of choice cannot be denied.
E) Affordability is bound to vary.


Would really appreciate advise and suggestions to the solutions of the above CR questions, (with reasons).

Many thanks in advance
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:24 am

by np4s » Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:32 pm
Doesn't anyone have any comments on these questions?

Legendary Member
Posts: 608
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:16 am
Thanked: 37 times
Followed by:8 members

by saketk » Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:57 pm
What is the source of these questions? The wordings are totally un-GMAT type, or, did you re-write the original questions?

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:24 am

by np4s » Tue Sep 13, 2011 12:17 am
1 and 4 are GMAT questions from another forum which unfortunately is dead and does not have answers.

2, 3 and 5 are from my GMAT coaching class - i believe they are either LSAT or CAT problems.

in any case, it would be good practice to be able to solve these, or at least from a GMAT perspective analyse what would the correct answer be, and even if none of the answers are correct, then the reasoning for eliminating the same.

thanks.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 416
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:48 am
Thanked: 28 times
Followed by:6 members

by gunjan1208 » Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:38 am
Hello,

I opted for the following options:

Q1: A
Q2: A
Q3: A
Q4: A
Q5: C

let me know if I could plump them well and them perhaps I could help you with the reasons if I am right.

Thank you!!

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1101
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:26 am
Thanked: 47 times
Followed by:13 members
GMAT Score:640

by HSPA » Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:42 am
1)C 2)A 3)B 4)D
First take: 640 (50M, 27V) - RC needs 300% improvement
Second take: coming soon..
Regards,
HSPA.

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:24 am

by np4s » Tue Sep 13, 2011 11:03 am
my guesses are the following.

1. C
A - undefined them. Additionally logical jump that its is a false sense of security.
B - irrelevant
D - more risks is far broader than driving riskily
E - irrelevant

C is a false assumption, one because the 'thus drivers do have a tendency to drive incautiously, when closer home' is premised on this and two because the other driver involved (the one further from home might be the one driving rashly).


2. E

I would think A, B, C, and D are too broad talking about most commercials while E is the only one which deals specifically with E (though really speaking irrelevant).
A and B are too similar to each other to otherwise distinguish between the two.
D is irrelevant.
C is out of scope.

3. B
A - engaging in arguments and marriages coming into to jeopardy are not clearly linked.
C - irrelevant
D - not directly connected with conclusion
E - commonality of pet peeves cant be said to be related to sleeping patters and marriages in jeopardy.

B i think should be the answer since it starts with the assumption that there are couples who are not in a happy arrangement to start with, who thereafter adopt different sleeping patterns. Consequently the marriage was already in jeopardy notwithstanding the earlier sleeping/waking patterns being similar.

4 - A

Alan, Mike, Lisa and Susan might not be the only ones who have scored excellent grades. Also we dont know if there are other students of Professor Giles other than these 4 who have also been given good grades. the speaker therefore can be said to be rushing to a hasty conclusion (i am reading decision as conclusion - which might not be correct).

B - agreed good grades have not been defined, but excellent grades is a upgrade on good grades and is not necessarily inconsistent with the initial statement of the prof having given good grades to his students.

C - personal attack
D - he clearly does not consider the trends blase.
E - the motive is not relevant to the conclusion that good grades are given (which is more of a statistical observation).

5 - not at all sure about this one. To be honest i cant even quite understand it.

Anyone with different thoughts. Experts please advise.

Thanks a lot.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1101
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:26 am
Thanked: 47 times
Followed by:13 members
GMAT Score:640

by HSPA » Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:05 pm
Hi NP4S,

For 4)

How do you that he is making hasty decision..?

May be the person wants to join under Prof.Giles to get a good score for himself too.
May be he is 'interested' rather than banging Mr. Giles.
First take: 640 (50M, 27V) - RC needs 300% improvement
Second take: coming soon..
Regards,
HSPA.