GMAT CR: “Strengthen” Question of the Day!

A broken shard of glass found in the laboratory of the famed physicist Alhazen has a polished surface that separates out the green and blue spectrums of white light, a key characteristic of a dispersive prism, which separates white light into all its constituent spectral components. Scientific historians, based on this finding, are revising their histories in order to give Alhazen, the “father of modern optics,” credit for the discovery of the dispersive prism, which was thought to have been discovered many years later.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the historians’ decision to revise the history of optics?

A. Dispersive prisms were the only type of prism that was theorized about in the scientific era in which Alhazen lived.

B. The piece of glass from which the shard broke, if unbroken, would have been just large enough to separate out the entire spectrum of white light into its spectral components.

C. The piece of glass was a combination of flint glass, which was known to have been used by Alhazen to craft lenses in his laboratory, and crown glass, another popular type of glass throughout history.

D. Dispersive prisms are the simplest and most common objects that are able to divide white light into its constituent spectral components.

E. Several glass objects that are known to have some properties of a dispersive prism have been found to be older than the glass piece in Alhazen’s laboratory.

Explanation:

Conclusion: Historians give A credit for prism.

Evidence: Glass found that has characteristic of prism.

Assumption: Glass not there by accident; glass definitely means A “discovered” prism.

Question: What STRENGTHENS?

Prediction: Anything that links this glass to the prism, removes coincidence.

A – Other prisms out of scope.
B – This connects the glass to the prism.
C – The type of glass is irrelevant.
D – This is just a fact about the prism.
E – This would weaken, since it makes the glass/prism link less strong.

The answer is (B).

Advertisements

Tough GMAT: “Strengthen” CR Question of the Day!

Try this challenging Critical Reasoning question from Kaplan LSAT!

Editorial: When legislators discovered that some public service is not being adequately provided, their most common response is to boost the funding for that public service. Because of this, the least efficiently run government bureaucracies are the ones that most commonly receive an increase in funds.

The statements in the editorial, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?

(A) The least efficiently run government bureaucracies are the bureaucracies that legislators most commonly discover to be failing to provide some public service adequately.

(B) When legislators discover that a public service is not being adequately provided, they never respond to the problem by reducing the funding of the government bureaucracy providing that service.

(C) Throughout the time a government bureaucracy is run inefficiently, legislators repeatedly boost the funding for the public service that this bureaucracy provides.

(D) If legislators boost funding for a public service, the government bureaucracy providing that service will commonly become less efficient as a result.

(E)The most inefficiently run government bureaucracy receives the most funding of any government bureaucracy.

Here’s how I’d analyze this passage (it’s okay if your notes are slightly different!):

CONCLUSION: Less efficient agencies get MORE funds.

EVIDENCE: Legislators give more $$ to public services that aren’t functioning.

ASSUMPTIONS: Public services are run by bureaucracies; bureaucracies are getting the funds directly.

QUESTION REPHRASE: What would SUPPORT the conclusion?

PREDICTION: Something showing continued inefficiency.

The correct answer is (A). It is the clearest restatement of the passage. Notice how (E) uses some pretty extreme language (“most”…”the most”…”of any”…). On that basis, it can be eliminated.

GMAT CR: “Strengthen” Question of the Day

Try this Critical Reasoning “strengthen” question from the GMAT Official Guide 12th Edition on your own! Then scroll down for an answer and explanation!

The pharmaceutical industry argues that because new drugs will not be developed unless heavy development costs can be recouped in later sales, the current 20 years of protection provided by patents should be extended in the case of newly developed drugs. However, in other industries new-product development continues despite high development costs, a fact that indicates that the extension is unnecessary.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the pharmaceutical industry’s argument against the challenge made above?

(A) No industries other than the pharmaceutical industry have asked for an extension of the 20-year limit on patent protection.
(B) Clinical trials of new drugs, which occur after the patent is granted and before the new drug can be marketed, often now take as long as 10 years to complete.
(C) There are several industries in which the ratio of research and development costs to revenues is higher than it is in the pharmaceutical industry.
(D) An existing patent for a drug does not legally prevent pharmaceutical companies from bringing to market alternative drugs, provided they are sufficiently dissimilar to the patented drug.
(E) Much recent industrial innovation has occurred in products-for example, in the computer and electronics industries-for which patent protection is often very ineffective.

Let’s look at our analysis!

Conclusion: The extension is unnecessary (the 20yr protection doesn’t need to be continued)

Evidence: New-product development continues despite high dev costs in other industries

Assumptions: That there isn’t some reason the pharmaceutical industry is diff. from other industries

The question asks which would support the pharmaceutical industry’s argument. In other words, what would WEAKEN our author’s argument. My prediction is something that shows the pharmaceutical industry is diff. from other industries, and that somehow the trends of other new-product development doesn’t apply to it.

Now let’s review the answer choices:

(A) What other industries have done is irrelevant.
(B) The length of time involving clinical trials would show what sets the pharmaceutical industry apart. Correct!
(C) This would seem to actually support the argument.
(D) Irrelevant to the argument.
(E) This choice does not show why the pharmaceutical industry NEEDS the extension – it just comments that for other industries, patents are ineffective. In a way, this seems to be the opposite of what we are looking for – the assumption being if these other industries don’t need a patent, then the pharmaceutical industry might not need one.

The tricky thing about this question is differentiating between the AUTHOR’s argument and the PHARMACEUTICAL’s argument. The correct answer is (B).

GMAT CR: “Strengthen” Question of the Day!

Check out this challenging question from the GMAT paper tests offered by GMAC:

Potato cyst nematodes are a pest of potato crops. The nematodes can lie dormant for several years in their cysts, which are protective capsules, and do not emerge except in the presence of chemicals emitted by potato roots. A company that has identified the relevant chemicals is planning to market them to potato farmers to spread on their fields when no potatoes are planted; any nematodes that emerge will soon starve to death.

Which of the following, if true, best supports the claim that the company’s plan will be successful?

(A) Nematodes that have emerged from their cysts can be killed by ordinary pesticides.

(B) The only part of a potato plant that a nematode eats is the roots.

(C) Some bacteria commonly present in the roots of potatoes digest the chemicals that cause the nematodes to emerge from their cysts.

(D) Trials have shown that spreading even minute quantities of the chemicals on potato fields caused nine-tenths of the nematodes present to emerge from their cysts.

(E) The chemicals that cause the nematodes to emerge from their cysts are not emitted all the time the potato plant is growing.

Conclusion: Nematodes = pest; spreading chemicals on fields = starving nematodes

Evidence: They emerge b/c of potato root chemicals; company going to market chemicals to potato farmers

Assumptions: -Nematodes do something bad to the potato; Nematodes will ONLY damage potatoes; the chemicals will not cause any secondary damage to potatoes

Question Rephrase: What will make the plan STRONGER?

Prediction: Proof the nematodes will die (chemicals are effective), that this will effectively protect potatoes with no secondary damage

(A) – Weakens. Makes the chemicals less valuable.

(B) – Weakens. Makes the nematode less dangerous.

(C) – Weakens. Shows chemicals are GOOD for potatoes.

(D) – Strengthens. Shows the chemicals are effective!

(E) – Weakens. This does not relate since the chemicals will be put on fields with no potatoes planted yet.

The correct answer is (D).