Test: Evaluate an Argument - GMAT MCQ

(A) What percentage of the people in the company will be happy to move to the new office?
This question is important in terms of employee satisfaction and morale. If a significant percentage of employees are unhappy with the idea of moving to the new office on the outskirts of the city, it could potentially affect their motivation and productivity. Employee satisfaction and engagement are important factors that can impact productivity levels.

(B) How many of the current employees live in the city center and how many live in the suburb?
Understanding the distribution of employees' residential locations is important to assess the potential impact of the move. If a significant portion of employees currently live in the city center, the commute to the new office on the outskirts may be longer and more inconvenient for them. Lengthy and stressful commutes can have a negative effect on employee well-being and productivity.

(C) Can some teams work unsupervised, that is, without a team leader?
This question is relevant to determining the level of autonomy and self-sufficiency within the teams. If certain teams can effectively work without constant supervision or guidance from a team leader, they may be better suited for the move to the new office location. However, if teams rely heavily on direct leadership and regular oversight, the absence of a team leader in the new office could impact their productivity.

(D) Do all the teams need to personally interact with each other on a regular basis?
As mentioned earlier, this question is crucial for assessing the impact on collaboration and communication between teams. If all the teams need to frequently interact with each other, having some teams located in a separate office on the outskirts may hinder their ability to work together effectively. This can potentially affect productivity, especially if face-to-face interaction is essential for their tasks.

(E) What is the cost of commuting from the city center to the suburb?
The cost of commuting is relevant to understanding the potential financial burden on employees. If the commuting costs from the city center to the new office location are high, it could impact employee motivation and job satisfaction. Additionally, if the cost is excessively high, it might lead to employees seeking job opportunities closer to their homes, which could impact the company's workforce and productivity.

While all the options are important considerations, the question in option (D) regarding the need for personal interaction between teams on a regular basis is the most critical in determining the potential impact on productivity when considering a separate office location on the outskirts of the city.

A. Comparing the value of Kevin's crop damage to the average value of the crop damage at farms where fish-based fertilizer was not applied to the fields before planting.
This investigation compares the crop damage at Kevin's farm to the average crop damage at other farms where fish-based fertilizer was not used. By analyzing the difference in damage between the two groups, it helps assess whether the fish-based fertilizer is a potential factor contributing to the severity of Kevin's crop damage. If Kevin's crop damage is significantly higher than the average, it could support his argument.

B. Determining the extent to which fish-based fertilizer increases crop yield.
This investigation focuses on evaluating the relationship between fish-based fertilizer and crop yield rather than crop damage. While it may provide useful information about the effectiveness of the fertilizer in enhancing crop yield, it does not directly address Kevin's claim regarding the fertilizer's impact on the severity of crop damage.

C. Comparing the long-term effects of Kevin's crop damage to the long-term effects of other crop damage in Baker County.
This investigation compares the long-term effects of Kevin's crop damage to the effects of other crop damage in Baker County, regardless of the cause. While it may provide valuable insights into the long-term consequences of the crop damage, it does not specifically address Kevin's argument about the fish-based fertilizer's role in the severity of the damage.

D. Comparing the severity of crop damage at Kevin's farm with the crop damage at agriculturally similar Baker County farms where fish-based fertilizer was not applied to fields before planting.
This investigation directly addresses Kevin's argument by comparing the severity of crop damage between his farm and other similar farms in Baker County that did not use fish-based fertilizer. It helps determine if there is a significant difference in crop damage, which would suggest that the fish-based fertilizer might be a contributing factor.

E. Determining the percentage of Baker County farms that applied fish-based fertilizer to their fields before planting.
This investigation focuses on gathering information about the prevalence of fish-based fertilizer usage among farms in Baker County. While it may provide insights into the adoption rate of the fertilizer, it does not directly evaluate Kevin's argument about the fertilizer's impact on the severity of his crop damage.

Among the options provided, option (D) is the most relevant for evaluating Kevin's argument as it directly compares the severity of crop damage at Kevin's farm to agriculturally similar farms that did not use fish-based fertilizer.

(A) Assigning responsibility for a certain result to someone whose involvement in the events leading to that result was purely coincidental.
This technique would involve attributing blame or responsibility to someone who had no actual influence or connection to the outcome. However, this technique is not used in the argument provided, as there is no mention of assigning responsibility based on coincidental involvement.

(B) Inferring the performance of certain actions on no basis other than the existence of both incentive and opportunity for performing those actions.
As explained earlier, this is the questionable technique used in the argument. The argument assumes that doctors frequently prescribe medical procedures solely because they lead to financial rewards, without considering other relevant factors that contribute to medical decision-making.

(C) Presenting as capricious and idiosyncratic decisions that are based on the rigorous application of well-defined principles.
This technique refers to portraying decisions as arbitrary or whimsical when, in fact, they are based on clear and defined principles. The argument does not employ this technique, as it does not present medical decisions as capricious or idiosyncratic, but rather focuses on the influence of financial rewards on doctors' treatment choices.

(D) Depicting choices as having been made arbitrarily by dismissing without argument reasons that have been given for these choices.
This technique involves portraying choices as arbitrary by dismissing the reasons provided for those choices without any supporting argument. The argument does not utilize this technique either, as it does not specifically dismiss reasons given for doctors' treatment choices. Instead, it primarily focuses on the financial incentives and the potential impact they may have on doctors' behavior.

(E) Assuming that the irrelevance of a consideration for one participant in a decision makes that consideration irrelevant for each participant in the decision.
This technique assumes that if a particular consideration is irrelevant for one participant, it is automatically irrelevant for all participants involved in the decision. The argument does not rely on this technique, as it does not assume the irrelevance of a consideration for one participant automatically applies to all participants. Instead, it concentrates on the financial incentives faced by doctors.

Among the options provided, option (B) correctly identifies the questionable technique used in the argument, which is inferring the performance of certain actions based solely on the existence of incentive and opportunity, without considering other factors.

(A) Bases a prediction of the intensity of a phenomenon on information about the intensity of that phenomenon's cause.
This option involves predicting the intensity of a phenomenon based on information about the intensity of its cause. The executive's reasoning does not directly align with this option because they are not predicting the intensity of a phenomenon based on the intensity of its cause. Instead, they are inferring the consumer response to print ads based on the limited response to website ads, which is not strictly related to predicting the intensity of a phenomenon based on its cause.

(B) Uses information about the typical frequency of events of a general kind to draw a conclusion about the probability of a particular event of that kind.
This option suggests using information about the typical frequency of events to make conclusions about the probability of a specific event. The executive's reasoning does not directly align with this option either because they are not drawing conclusions about the probability of a particular event based on the typical frequency of events. Instead, they are inferring the consumer response to print ads based on the observed response to website ads.

(C) Infers a statistical generalization from claims about a large number of specific instances.
This option involves inferring a statistical generalization based on claims about a large number of specific instances. The executive's reasoning does not involve inferring a statistical generalization from claims about a large number of instances. Instead, they are making a specific inference about the consumer response to print ads based on the limited response to website ads.

(D) Uses a case in which direct evidence is available to draw a conclusion about an analogous case in which direct evidence is unavailable.
This option accurately describes the executive's reasoning. They use the available information about consumer response to the ads on the website (where direct evidence is available) to draw a conclusion about the consumer response to the print ads (where direct evidence is unavailable). The executive assumes that the limited response on the website indicates that the response to the print ads is also below par, drawing an inference from the available case to the analogous case.

(E) Bases a prediction about future events on facts about recent comparable events.
This option involves making predictions about future events based on facts about recent comparable events. The executive's reasoning does not involve making predictions about future events, but rather inferring the consumer response to print ads based on the observed response to website ads.

Among the options provided, option (D) accurately captures the reasoning used by the executive. They utilize a case with direct evidence (website ads) to draw a conclusion about an analogous case with indirect evidence (print ads).

(A) The application fails to establish whether Wilton was given the opportunity to repair the brakes.
This option suggests that the application should have considered whether Wilton had the opportunity to fix the defective brakes before selling the bicycle to Harris. However, this information is not necessary to determine whether Wilton committed fraud. Even if Wilton had the opportunity to repair the brakes but knowingly sold the bicycle with defective brakes, it would still be considered fraud. Therefore, this criticism is not the most relevant vulnerability in the application.

(B) The application fails to indicate how much money Wilton received for the bicycle.
This option questions the relevance of the amount of money Wilton received for the bicycle in determining whether fraud was committed. However, the principle focuses on the act of knowingly selling a defective item while claiming it to be sound, rather than the financial transaction itself. The amount of money received does not affect whether Wilton committed fraud or not, so this criticism is not the most relevant vulnerability in the application.

(C) The application uses the word "defective" in a sense that is crucially different from how it is used in the statement of the principle.
This option points out a potential discrepancy in the usage of the term "defective" between the principle and the application. If the word "defective" is used differently in the application compared to how it is used in the principle, it could introduce ambiguity or inconsistency. However, based on the information provided, there is no indication that the term "defective" is used differently in the application. Therefore, this criticism is not the most relevant vulnerability in the application.

(D) Harris might not have believed Wilton's statement about the bicycle's condition.
This option raises the possibility that Harris did not believe Wilton's claim that the bicycle was in good working condition. If Harris did not believe the statement, it could weaken the argument that Wilton committed fraud. However, the principle focuses on the seller's knowledge and intention to deceive, regardless of whether the buyer believed the statement or not. So while this criticism introduces a potential vulnerability, it is not the most relevant one in this case.

(E) Asserting something without justification is not the same as asserting something one knows to be false.
This option accurately identifies the main vulnerability in the application of the principle. The application assumes that Wilton knowingly made a false statement about the bicycle's condition, even though it is stated that Wilton knew very little about its condition. This criticism challenges the assumption that Wilton committed fraud based on lacking knowledge rather than intentional deception. It questions whether there is sufficient evidence to support the claim that Wilton knowingly sold a defective item while claiming it to be sound, which undermines the application of the principle.

Among the options provided, option (E) presents the most relevant criticism to the vulnerability in the application of the principle.

(A) She misses Al's point entirely.
This option suggests that Amy fails to grasp the main point of Al's argument. However, Amy's response directly addresses and challenges Al's argument by providing an alternative explanation for the lack of contact with aliens. Therefore, Amy does not miss Al's point, making this option incorrect.

(B) She attacks Al personally rather than his reasoning.
This option implies that Amy launches a personal attack against Al rather than critiquing his reasoning. However, Amy's response does not attack Al personally but rather challenges the assumption he made in his argument. Amy engages with Al's reasoning and presents an alternative perspective, so this option is not applicable.

(C) She points out that Al made an unwarranted assumption.
This option accurately captures the relationship between Amy's response and Al's argument. Amy questions the assumption made by Al that aliens would be visiting Earth specifically to find other intelligent species for communication. By suggesting that aliens may not have considered humans as intelligent, she points out the unwarranted nature of Al's assumption. Therefore, this option is the correct explanation.

(D) She ignores the detailed internal development of Al's logic.
This option suggests that Amy disregards the detailed internal development of Al's logic. However, Amy's response directly challenges Al's assumption and provides an alternative explanation, indicating that she has considered and engaged with the logic presented. Therefore, this option is not applicable.

(E) She introduces a false analogy.
This option implies that Amy introduces a false analogy in her response. However, Amy's response does not involve the introduction of an analogy. She offers an alternative perspective on the intelligence of human beings as a potential reason for the lack of contact with aliens. Therefore, this option is not relevant to Amy's response.

Among the options provided, option (C) is the most accurate explanation for the relationship between Amy's response and Al's argument. Amy points out that Al made an unwarranted assumption, questioning the basis of his argument.

(A) During his last stint as a manager for another team, Higgins had a winning record, although another manager rumored to be interested in the position has won pennant titles.
This option presents information about Higgins' previous managerial experience, stating that he had a winning record during his last stint as a manager. However, it also introduces the existence of another manager rumored to be interested in the position who has won pennant titles. While this information provides some context, it does not directly support or justify the owners' decision to re-sign Higgins. Therefore, this option does not provide a strong indication that the decision was logically well supported.

(B) The Baseball Owners' Association is considering a new profit-sharing plan that will allow teams with smaller television audiences, such as the Springfield Sluggers, a greater share of television revenues.
This option introduces information about a potential profit-sharing plan that could benefit teams with smaller television audiences, like the Springfield Sluggers. While this information might be relevant to the team's financial situation and future prospects, it does not specifically address the decision to re-sign the manager. Therefore, this option does not directly provide an indication that the decision was logically well supported.

(C) The Springfield Sluggers, an expansion team with no star players and a small team payroll, has shown consistently improved performance over the past three years and finally posted a winning record in the second half of last season.
This option provides the most relevant and compelling indication that the owners' decision was logically well supported. It states that despite being an expansion team with limited resources and no star players, the Springfield Sluggers have consistently improved their performance over the past three years. Additionally, it highlights that they achieved a winning record in the second half of the last season. This information suggests that the owners may have considered the team's progress and positive trajectory under the manager's leadership, leading them to re-sign him.

(D) Sports journalists and irate fans in Capitol City, home of the Capitol City Cougars, a rival team to the Springfield Sluggers, recently succeeded in their campaign to have the team's manager fired because of the team's lackluster record.
This option presents information about a campaign to have a rival team's manager fired due to the team's lackluster record. While this information highlights the actions of journalists and fans, it does not directly relate to the decision made by the Springfield Sluggers' owners. Therefore, this option does not provide a significant indication that the decision was logically well supported.

(E) Many players on the Springfield Sluggers have had to be replaced after they declared free agency and signed with other teams.
This option mentions that many players on the team have been replaced after declaring free agency and signing with other teams. While player turnover can have an impact on team performance, this information does not specifically address the decision to re-sign the manager. It focuses more on the player transactions rather than the managerial aspect of the team. Therefore, this option does not strongly support the notion that the decision was logically well supported.

Among the options provided, option (C) stands out as the best indication that the Springfield Sluggers' owners' decision was logically well supported. It highlights the team's consistent improvement over the past three years and their eventual achievement of a winning record, despite being an expansion team with limited resources. This information suggests that the owners considered the team's progress and positive trajectory under the manager's leadership as the basis for their decision to re-sign him.

I. Heavy smokers may be physically as well as psychologically addicted to tobacco.
This criticism points out that heavy smokers may have both physical and psychological dependencies on tobacco. The advertisement suggests that SmokeFree with its desire suppressant can help heavy smokers cut down significantly on their smoking. However, if heavy smokers are physically addicted to tobacco, simply suppressing their desire may not be enough to address the physical withdrawal symptoms and cravings associated with nicotine addiction. This raises a valid concern about the effectiveness of SmokeFree for heavy smokers.

II. A medicine that is effective for heavy smokers may not be effective for the population of smokers generally.
This criticism highlights the potential limitation of the study's findings. The advertisement claims that SmokeFree, with its patented desire suppressant, helped heavy smokers at the mountain retreat cut down on their smoking. However, the effectiveness of a medicine or treatment for a specific population, such as heavy smokers at a retreat, does not necessarily guarantee the same effectiveness for the general population of smokers. Therefore, the advertisement may overstate the generalizability of the survey results.

III. A survey conducted at a mountain retreat to aid smokers may yield different results than one would expect under other circumstances.
This criticism focuses on the context of the survey conducted at the mountain retreat. The advertisement presents the survey results as evidence of the effectiveness of SmokeFree. However, the specific environment and conditions of the mountain retreat may have influenced the outcomes of the survey. Factors such as the supportive retreat setting, access to counseling or other resources, and a motivated participant group may have contributed to the reported success rates. As a result, the advertisement may not accurately represent the potential outcomes in different settings or circumstances.

In summary, option (E) I, II, and III provides a comprehensive and valid set of criticisms that highlight important considerations regarding the effectiveness and generalizability of the advertisement's claims.

A. Whether discounting the staple prices is the only way to improve the economic and social welfare of the people?
This option questions whether there are alternative methods or approaches that could potentially be more effective in improving economic and social welfare. While relevant, it does not directly address the impact or effectiveness of the specific scheme in question.

B. Whether consumers with medium or high income groups would also be benefitted by the scheme?
This option explores whether the scheme extends its benefits beyond low-income consumers. Understanding whether higher-income groups would also benefit helps assess the fairness and potential impact of the scheme on different socioeconomic groups.

C. Whether the discounted staples generate a significantly high demand in the low-income group?
This option assesses the effectiveness of the scheme by examining the level of demand generated among the target audience (low-income group). If the discounted staples are not generating a significant demand, it raises concerns about the scheme's efficacy in benefiting the intended beneficiaries.

D. Whether the prices that dealers charge for the staples will reflect the lower prices they would be paying the government.
This option is crucial for evaluating whether the discount provided by the government is being passed on to the consumers. If the dealers do not reflect the lower prices in the prices they charge the consumers, it would undermine the intended benefits of the scheme for low-income consumers.

E. Whether this scheme would have an adverse impact on the budgetary allocation of other initiatives taken by the government.
This option examines the potential repercussions of the scheme on the government's budget and its allocation to other initiatives. It helps evaluate the overall feasibility and sustainability of the scheme in the context of the government's broader budgetary considerations.

Among these options, option (D) is the most useful in evaluating the argument. It directly addresses whether the scheme's benefits in the form of lower prices are actually passed on to the consumers by examining the prices charged by the dealers. This information is crucial to determine the effectiveness and impact of the scheme on low-income consumers.

(A) Waiting longer periods between harvests so that the trees will be larger when cut.
This option suggests delaying the harvests to allow the trees to grow larger. While this may have some benefits, it does not directly address the environmental impacts of clear cutting, such as erosion and monoculture formation.

(B) Using selective harvesting techniques that leave some mature trees standing.
This option addresses one of the negative impacts mentioned in the passage, namely the lack of mature trees after clear cutting. Selective harvesting allows for the preservation of some mature trees, which can help mitigate the negative effects on erosion and biodiversity.

(C) Spraying areas that are clear cut with an insecticide to prevent infestation.
This option addresses one of the negative impacts mentioned in the passage, which is the susceptibility of new trees to disease and insect infestation. While insecticide spraying may help prevent infestation, it does not address the issue of erosion caused by clear cutting.

(D) Leaving some areas uncut, such as those near state parks and along roadsides.
This option suggests leaving certain areas untouched, which helps preserve biodiversity and mitigate the negative impacts of clear cutting. It directly addresses the issue of erosion mentioned in the passage.

(E) Planting monocultures, a single species of fast-growing tree, in areas that have been clear cut.
This option is not a suitable solution as it exacerbates one of the negative impacts mentioned in the passage, namely the formation of monocultures that are highly susceptible to disease and insect infestation.

Based on the passage, option (B) is the most appropriate technique to employ. Selective harvesting that leaves some mature trees standing helps reduce the negative impacts of clear cutting by preserving biodiversity and mitigating erosion.