# Test: Miscellaneous

## 8 Questions MCQ Test Verbal Reasoning for GMAT | Test: Miscellaneous

Description
Attempt Test: Miscellaneous | 8 questions in 10 minutes | Mock test for GMAT preparation | Free important questions MCQ to study Verbal Reasoning for GMAT for GMAT Exam | Download free PDF with solutions
QUESTION: 1

### Several studies conducted over a decade have shown that most of the people in the mountain states of the US listen to music primarily in an active manner: i.e. they listen specifically to listen rather than being in a space where music is playing in the background. On the other hand, the majority of people in the coastal states of the US primarily consume their music in a passive manner. As they are trying to attract as many active listeners as possible, record labels should conduct maximum marketing activities in the mountain states and not in the coastal ones.Which of the following indicates a flaw in the author’s reasoning?

Solution:

Argument Analysis

Pre-Thinking

Conclusion Clarification

The argument concludes that in order to attract as many active listeners as possible, record labels should conduct maximum marketing activities in the mountain states and not in the coastal ones because most of the people in MS listen to music in an active manner, whereas, most people in CS listen to music in a passive manner.

Pre-Thinking Approach

To pre-think a flaw in the reasoning, let’s see how we can falsify this conclusion.  To do so, we will look at the logical structure, focusing on linkage 1 and the conclusion.  We will understand the condition under which the conclusion is falsified. Thus, the flaw would be a logical gap in author’s reasoning used to reach the stated conclusion.

• Falsification Condition:  What if the overall population of CS is significantly greater than that of MS? The phrase “most of the people” means “at least 51% of the people”.  Even though the proportion of active listeners is lower in CS, it’s possible that absolute number of active listeners is greater in CS than in MS if the total population of CS is more than that of MS. Clearly, in such a case, the recommendation will not be fruitful and thus the conclusion will not hold.
• Flaw:  The argument is vulnerable to the criticism that it confuses the proportion of people with absolute number of people and thus while drawing the conclusion it doesn’t take in account the total population of both the regions.

With this pre-thinking in mind, let’s evaluate the answer choices.

A

The author doesn’t take into account the possibility that there might be far fewer restaurants and pubs, places where music plays in the background, in the mountain states.

Incorrect- Irrelevant

The reason for number of listeners is not important to the argument.

B

The author doesn’t consider listeners who consume their music in both possible ways.

Incorrect- No flaw

The argument does categorise the profile of listeners based on how these listeners primarily listen to music. This fact takes care of even those listeners who possibly consume music in both ways.

C

Coastal states can have more active listeners than mountain states.

Correct

This choice is written along the lines of our pre-thinking per Linkage #1.  CS can have more population than MS so that the absolute number of listeners in CS is more even when the proportion is lesser.

D

The author does not account for the fact that listening to music in an active way in the mountain states may only be a passing phase.

Incorrect – Irrelevant

The author makes the recommendation on the basis of studies conducted over a decade. Hence, the “passing phase” angle is not relevant here.

E

Word of mouth recommendations can sometimes be more effective than marketing activities.

Incorrect – Irrelevant

The argument only focuses on marketing activities and thus comparative effectiveness of word of mouth recommendations is not relevant to the argument.

QUESTION: 2

### Clearly, General Motors is spending significantly less on marketing its convertible car Volt than Toyota is spending on marketing its car Toyota Prius. Even though both cars were launched roughly at the same time, offer the same functionality and come at the same price range, Prius has sold more than four times as many cars until now as Volt has. This is despite the fact that Volt recently won the prestigious “Car of the Year” award.The above argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?

Solution:

Argument Analysis

Pre-Thinking

Conclusion Clarification

This is a causal argument.

The conclusion states that General Motors is spending significantly less on marketing its convertible car Volt than Toyota is spending on marketing its car Toyota Prius. The conclusion is based on the fact that despite several similarities such as time of launch, functionality and price and the fact that Volt has won the prestigious ‘car of the year award’, the Prius has sold 4 times as many cars as Volt has. Clearly, the author thinks the difference in the sales of cars is due to spending on marketing.

Pre-Thinking Approach

To pre-think a flaw in the reasoning, let’s see how we can falsify this conclusion.  To do so, we will look at the logical structure, focusing on linkage 1 and the conclusion.  We will understand the condition under which the conclusion is falsified. Thus, the flaw would a logical gap in author’s reasoning while reaching the conclusion.

• Falsification Condition:  What if General Motors expenditure on the marketing of Volt is the same as Toyota’s spending on the marketing of Prius and some other factor has led to the difference in the number of card sold? For instance, it’s possible that the marketing techniques opted by Toyota are more impactful than the techniques opted by GM. In this case, even though the expenditure is the same, Prius can sell more cars due to the effective marketing plan and thus the conclusion will not hold.
• Flaw:  The argument is vulnerable to the criticism that it fails to consider any other causes that might have led Prius to sell more than four times as many cars till now as Volt has.

With this pre-thinking in mind, let’s evaluate the answer choices.

A

It does not take into consideration the perceived value of the “Car of the Year” award.

Incorrect - No flaw

The author mentions this award and says that Prius sold more units in spite of Volt’s receiving this award. Now if we say that the perceived value of the car was low, we cannot argue that this factor could have led to the difference in the sales as the argument doesn’t provide any link between a car’s winning an award and its sales.

B

It assumes without any basis that all cars with the same functionality and price range should sell equally.

Incorrect - No flaw

The author is only attributing a cause for the vast difference in sales. By no means, this attribution indicates that the author assumes that the cars should have sold equally. Also, the scope of the discussion is limited to just these two cars and not “all” cars.

C

It does not consider that it could be a conscious decision of the management at General Motors to spend less money on the marketing of Volt in the beginning and instead use the money to expand dealerships.

Incorrect - Irrelevant

First of all, we don’t even know whether there was a difference in the expenditure. Secondly, the argument is not about what led to the less spending but instead what led to the difference in sales.

D

It fails to consider that there could be other possible causes for the difference in the sales of Volt and Prius cars.

Correct

This choice is written along the lines of our pre-thinking per Linkage #1.  It states that there could be some other factors such as company’s strategy or marketing plan that might have led to the difference in sales of Volt and Prius cars. The argument ignores any such possibility.

E

It fails to take into account other cars launched by Toyota during the same time.

Incorrect - Irrelevant

This option tells us that the argument fails to consider other cars launched by Toyota during the same time. As the argument is about Volt and Prius, not taking other cars into account is not a basis for criticism

QUESTION: 3

### Alan: Industrialization helps in achieving a variety of social objectives such as employment, gender equality and poverty eradication. Thus, extensive industrialization must be promoted for the welfare of a nation. Charlie: But you must also take into consideration that extensive industrial processes can have negative environmental impacts such as climate change, loss of natural resources and extinction of species. These threaten the economic and social welfare of a nation. Thus, a nation should promote the positive impacts of industrial development while limiting or eliminating its negative impacts. Charlie objects to Alan’s argument by

Solution:

Argument Analysis

Pre-Thinking

In order to see how Charlie objected to Alan’s argument, we will look at the logical structure, focusing on the reasoning in both the arguments.

We would first look at the argument presented by Alan and then see which strategy Charlie has used in his objection. Let’s look at both the arguments:

Alan’s Argument

Conclusion: Extensive industrialization must be promoted for the welfare of a nation.

Reasoning: Industrialization helps in achieving a variety of social objectives.

Charlie’s Argument

Conclusion: A nation should promote the positive impacts of industrial development while limiting or eliminating its negative impacts.

Reasoning: Extensive industrial processes can have negative environmental impacts which threaten the economic and social welfare of a nation.

Charlie’s reasoning suggests that Alan should also consider the negative impacts of extensive industrialization. Note: While drawing his conclusion, Alan has only considered positive impacts of industrialization.

With this pre-thinking in mind, let’s evaluate the answer choices.

A

claiming that Alan has exaggerated the positive impacts of industrialization.

Incorrect - Irrelevant

Charlie doesn’t dispute the extent of the positive impacts stated by Alan.

B

showing that Alan has based his argument on a limited understanding of the impact of industrialization.

Correct

This option is written along the lines of pre-thinking.

C

rejecting Alan’s argument as flawed.

Incorrect - Irrelevant

Charlie neither disputes the positive impacts indicated nor the conclusion drawn by Alan. He only raises a consideration that should be accounted for while implementing Alan’s suggestion.

D

contradicting the evidence that Alan has used to support his argument.

Incorrect - Irrelevant

As stated earlier, Charlie doesn’t dispute the positive effects listed by Alan.

E

suggesting that the positive impacts of industrialization have severe drawbacks that Alan has not taken into account.

Incorrect - Irrelevant

Charlie does not suggest severe drawbacks of the positive effects listed by Alan. Instead, he brings forth certain separate negative impacts of extensive industrialization.

QUESTION: 4

Following a major mishap, a pilgrim spot in the country had been kept closed for the past five years. Recently, a directive by the government has allowed the spot to be reopened for pilgrimage. Since the directive was first published in national newspapers, a huge rush of people, mostly in their early twenties, has been witnessed across the booking offices that have exclusive rights to offer tours to the spot. Clearly, this observation goes against the claim that such spots are most likely to attract pilgrims over the age of 50.

Which of the following statements most demonstrates a flaw in the argument?

Solution:

Argument Analysis

Pre-Thinking

Conclusion Clarification

The conclusion states that this observation goes against the claim that such spots are most likely to attract pilgrims over the age of 50. The observation is that people in their early twenties are the ones making the reservations at the offices.

Pre-Thinking Approach

Let’s see how we can find a flaw in the argument.  To do so, we will look at the logical structure, focusing on linkage 1 and the conclusion. Thus the way to look for a flaw in the argument is to understand whether the author uses sound logic to arrive at the conclusion.

Linkage#1Since the directive was first published in national newspapers, a huge rush of people, mostly in their early twenties, has been witnessed across the booking offices that have exclusive rights to offer tours to the spot.

But what if the people booking the tickets are different from the ones going on the pilgrimage? What if young people are booking tickets for their parents or grandparents? In other words, the author’s argument assumes that:

The people making the bookings are the ones going on the pilgrimage.

However, such an assumption is unwarranted. As stated earlier, it is possible that the young people observed at the booking offices were making reservations for elderly members of their families.

With this pre-thinking in mind, let’s evaluate the answer choices.

The author fails to consider that the number of tickets booked this year may differ from the number of pilgrims who travelled to the spot five years back.

Incorrect - Irrelevant

There is no comparison between the two time-periods. Hence, this information is completely immaterial to the argument.

B

The author fails to consider that the regional booking offices can also offer tickets to other pilgrim spots.

Incorrect - Irrelevant

The author’s argument is not dependent on the number of tickets sold to one particular pilgrim spot but instead on the age-demographics of the people buying tickets at various booking offices.

C

The author fails to distinguish between people who book tickets from the counters and the ones who travel.

Correct

This option is written along the lines of our pre-thinking per linkage 1.

D

The author fails to consider that the religious sentiments of the young generation can change in five years.

Incorrect - Irrelevant

There is no comparison between the two time-periods. Hence, this information is completely immaterial to the argument.

E

The author does not supply any information on the proportion of booked tickets that end up getting cancelled in the last moment.

Incorrect - Irrelevant

The proportion of booked tickets that get cancelled does not affect the conclusion of the argument.

QUESTION: 5

TV is the future because it remains king of all media. While handsets get hyped, the typical U.S. consumer watches more than 5 hours of TV a day, according to Nielsen, and even younger adults 18 to 24 years old—the supposed digital generation—spend 3 hours and 30 minutes on televisions daily compared to only 49 minutes on the Web and 20 minutes on mobile.

The above argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?

Solution:
QUESTION: 6

A film is more likely to have a complex storyline when it is directed by a director who has won an Academy Award. Regardless of the awards won by the director, a film with a complex storyline is more likely to do badly at the box-office than a film with a story-line that is not complex. Since other causes of poor box-office performance are not related to the awards won by the director, there must be more films with poor box-office collections with Academy Award-winning directors than with directors who have not won any Academy Awards.The argument above is most vulnerable to which one of the following criticisms?

Solution:

Argument Analysis

Pre-Thinking

Conclusion Clarification

The author concludes that total number of films with poor BO collections directed by AWDs would be greater than total number of films with poor BO collections directed by NAWDs. The conclusion is based on the fact that AWDs are more likely to direct a film with CS, and irrespective of the awards won by the director, films with CS are more likely to perform worse at box office than films without CS. All other factors behind poor performance of films at box office are unrelated to awards won by the directors.

Pre-Thinking Approach

To pre-think a flaw in the reasoning, let’s see how we can falsify this conclusion.  To do so, we will look at the logical structure, focusing on linkage 1 and the conclusion.  We will understand the condition under which the conclusion is falsified. Thus, the flaw would show a logical gap in the author’s reasoning while reaching the conclusion.

• Falsification Condition:  What if the total number of films directed by NAWDs is significantly more than that directed by AWDs? In such a case, there may not be more films with poor BO collections with AWDs than with NAWDs.
• Flaw:  The argument is vulnerable to the criticisms that there is an abrupt jump from the premises given to the conclusion drawn. The argument has arrived at the conclusion without comparing the actual total number of films made by Academy Award winning directors and the ones made by the rest of the directors.

To understand the same, please consider the following scenario:

With this pre-thinking in mind, let’s evaluate the answer choices.

A

It ignores the fact that a film that does not do well on the box-office may eventually do well when broadcasted on TV.

Incorrect - No flaw

This statement is of no relevance to the argument since the argument is concerned with the performance of the films only at the box office.

B

It fails to consider a scenario in which the number of films directed by directors who have not won Academy Awards is significantly more than that directed by directors who have won Academy Awards.

Correct

This choice is written along the lines of our pre-thinking per Linkage #1. It points out that the argument does not compare the actual total number of films made by AWDs and NAWDs. If we see the pre-thinking example, we can notice that the author’s conclusion is incorrect for the particular scenario.

C

It identifies one aspect of the films as the sole determinant of their box office performance without considering other possible aspects.

Incorrect - No flaw

This statement is incorrect since the passage does talk about “other factors” besides a complex storyline that determine a film’s performance at the box office. The passage says that all other factors are not related to awards won by directors.

D

It fails to consider a scenario in which directors may be aware of the fact that a complex storyline may not translate into a successful box-office collection.

Incorrect - No flaw

The awareness of directors regarding the eventual box-office performance of their films is of no relevance to the author’s conclusion.

E

It fails to factor in the number of films with poor box-office collections that were directed by Academy Award-winning directors and that ultimately won critical acclaim.

Incorrect - No flaw

This statement is irrelevant since the author’s conclusion is concerned with only the box-office performance of such films.

QUESTION: 7

A recent study shows that the overall sales of print per capita has declined at an average 5% per capita over the past decade proving that overall interest in reading has steadily declined.

Internet Geek: People get most of the information online and do not need to spend money on print.

Literary Scholar: Shakespeare still remains the most sold author and his books sell very well. However, today's authors produce few works of similar quality. We need more authors like Shakespeare to re-ignite print sales.

Describe the position taken by Internet Geek and Literary Scholar

Solution:

Argument Analysis

Pre-Thinking

1. Internet Geek refutes the conclusion by providing alternate reason for the decline in print sales.
2. Literary Scholar supports the conclusion and provides reason for the decline in reading.  He also suggest solution to re-ignite the sales.

A

The Internet Geek supports the conclusion and provides an explanation for the observed phenomena while the Literary scholar refutes the conclusion and provides an alternate hypothesis.

Only the Literary Scholar supports the conclusion.  The Internet Geek does not support the conclusion.  He presents alternate explanation for the observed phenomena.    All portions marked in red are incorrect.

B

The Internet Geek provides and alternate explanation to an observed phenomena while the Literary Scholar provides a recommendation and supports the conclusion

Correct choice.

C

The Internet Geek and The Literary Scholar support the conclusion providing a supporting evidence  from their respective fields

Only the Literary Scholar supports the conclusion.  Also none of them provide supporting evidence.  The Literary Scholar provides reasoning and solution for the observed phenomenon.

D

The Internet Geek provides the circumstances under which the conclusion could be true while the Literary scholar contrasts the writing styles of 2 eras.

Internet Geek does not support the conclusion in any circumstance.   We may consider the comparison stated by Literary Scholar as contrasting the writing styles of Shakespearean era and modern era.

E

The Internet Geek challenges the premise of the conclusion while the Literary scholar suggests solutions to address the stated fact.

Internet Geek does not challenge the premise – the decline in sales of print.  He challenges the conclusion.

QUESTION: 8

Four neighboring countries produce a third of the world’s harvest of sugarcane. During the last decade, Vernia’s sugarcane output was greater than that of Brownland. However, because Sylvania had a greater output of sugarcane than Borodia’s, Vernia must have produced more sugarcane than Borodia.

If taken into consideration, any of the following makes the argument above logically correct EXCEPT:

Solution:
 Use Code STAYHOME200 and get INR 200 additional OFF Use Coupon Code