Test: Evaluate an Argument - GMAT MCQ

The argument presented in the question states that the drop in car sales in Country E can be attributed to the heightened public awareness about the ecological harm caused by fossil fuel-burning vehicles. To evaluate this argument effectively, we need to identify the piece of information that would be most useful in determining whether the increased public awareness is indeed the reason for the drop in car sales. Let's evaluate each option:

(A) Whether there is any opposing evidence showing that vehicles that run on fossil fuels do not influence the ecology to a great extent.
This option introduces the possibility of opposing evidence, but it does not directly address the relationship between public awareness and car sales. It is not directly relevant to evaluating the argument. Therefore, option (A) is not the correct answer.

(B) Whether car sales have decreased in countries with similar population densities to Country E.
This option compares car sales in countries with similar population densities to Country E. While it may provide some useful context, it does not directly address the relationship between public awareness and car sales. It is not the most relevant piece of information for evaluating the argument. Therefore, option (B) is not the correct answer.

(C) Whether the retail prices of cars, or of fuel, have increased during the past 8 years.
This option directly addresses a key factor in the argument: the retail prices of cars or fuel. If the prices have increased significantly, it could provide an alternative explanation for the drop in car sales, unrelated to public awareness. If prices have not increased, it would strengthen the argument that public awareness is the primary driver behind the drop in car sales. Therefore, option (C) is the correct answer.

(D) Whether the public awareness campaigns held in Country E touched on the subject of recycling.
This option introduces the topic of recycling, which is not directly relevant to the argument's focus on public awareness and car sales. It does not provide useful information for evaluating the argument. Therefore, option (D) is not the correct answer.

(E) Whether the fossil fuel-burning vehicles in Country E are manufactured locally or imported.
This option focuses on the origin of the vehicles but does not directly address the relationship between public awareness and car sales. It is not directly relevant to evaluating the argument. Therefore, option (E) is not the correct answer.

In summary, the most useful piece of information to establish in order to evaluate the argument is option (C): Whether the retail prices of cars, or of fuel, have increased during the past 8 years.

The argument states that farmers who used genetically modified (GM) feed corn applied less insecticide and still achieved comparable yields to ordinary corn. However, the cost of GM corn seed is higher than ordinary corn seed, and the savings on insecticide rarely exceeded the extra seed costs. Therefore, the argument concludes that switching to GM seed would be unlikely to increase profits for most feed-corn farmers.

To evaluate this argument, we need to identify the missing information that would help us assess the validity of the conclusion. Let's consider each answer choice:

(A) Whether there are insect pests that sometimes reduce feed-corn yields, but against which commonly used insecticides and the genetic modification are equally ineffective.
This information is not directly relevant to the profitability of switching to GM seed. The argument is focused on the reduction of insecticide use and cost savings, rather than the effectiveness of insecticides or genetic modification against specific pests.

(B) Whether the price that farmers receive for feed corn has remained steady over the past few years.
This information may be important in understanding the financial aspect of switching to GM seed. However, the argument primarily focuses on the cost difference between GM and ordinary corn seed, as well as the savings from reduced insecticide use. The stability of feed corn prices does not directly address these points.

(C) Whether the insecticides typically used on feed corn tend to be more expensive than insecticides typically used on other crops.
This information could be relevant to the cost comparison between insecticides used on feed corn and those used on other crops. However, the argument does not make a comparison between feed corn and other crops, so this information is not crucial to evaluate the profitability of switching to GM seed.

(D) Whether most of the farmers who tried the genetically modified corn last season applied more insecticide than was actually necessary.
This answer choice directly addresses the argument's claim that farmers using GM corn applied less insecticide. If it turns out that most farmers using GM corn actually applied more insecticide than necessary, it would undermine the argument's assertion of reduced insecticide use. This information is vital to evaluating the profitability of switching to GM seed.

(E) Whether, for most farmers who plant feed corn, it is their most profitable crop.
This information focuses on the overall profitability of feed corn as a crop choice for farmers. While this information could be relevant in some contexts, it does not specifically address the cost savings or increased profits resulting from switching to GM seed.

Given the above analysis, option (D) is the most useful piece of information to evaluate the argument. It directly addresses the argument's claim about reduced insecticide use, which is crucial in assessing the profitability of switching to GM seed.

Let's go through each answer choice and evaluate its potential effectiveness:

(A) Maintaining the quantity of oil imported at constant yearly levels: This option suggests keeping the oil import levels constant regardless of the price increase. While it may provide some stability in the short term, it does not address the underlying issue of high oil prices and may not be the most effective long-term solution.

(B) Increasing the number of oil tankers in its fleet: Increasing the number of oil tankers may help in terms of transportation logistics, but it does not directly address the economic impact of higher oil prices. It is unlikely to be the most effective solution in reducing the long-term economic impact.

(C) Suspending diplomatic relations with major oil-producing nations: Suspending diplomatic relations with major oil-producing nations may lead to political consequences and potential disruption in the oil supply chain. It is unlikely to be an effective long-term solution for reducing the economic impact of higher oil prices.

(D) Decreasing oil consumption through conservation: This option focuses on decreasing oil consumption through conservation measures. By promoting energy efficiency, developing alternative energy sources, and reducing dependence on oil, a country can lower its vulnerability to oil price shocks. This option aligns with the goal of reducing the long-term economic impact and is the most likely effective solution.

(E) Decreasing domestic production of oil: Decreasing domestic oil production might reduce the reliance on oil as an energy source but may not directly address the issue of higher oil prices. It could also have adverse effects on domestic employment and energy security. Therefore, it is less likely to be the most effective long-term solution.

In summary, option (D) - Decreasing oil consumption through conservation - is the most likely policy to reduce the long-term economic impact on an open-market nation of sharp and unexpected increases in international oil prices.

The argument presented by the public health official states that some researchers suspect that magnetic fields from high-voltage power lines can cause health problems for people who live near the lines. However, the official believes this is extremely unlikely because the strength of the magnetic fields from high-voltage power lines is lower than the average strength of magnetic fields in homes that are not located near such lines, beyond a distance of a few feet.

We need to find an answer choice that would help us evaluate the public health official's argument. Let's go through each option:

(A) Whether magnetic fields in homes that are not located near high-voltage power lines can cause health problems for the residents of those homes.
This answer choice is relevant because it compares the potential health effects of magnetic fields in homes not located near high-voltage power lines to the health effects of living near such power lines. If it is found that magnetic fields in homes without power lines can cause health problems, it weakens the public health official's argument that living near power lines is unlikely to cause health problems.

(B) What proportion of people who live near high-voltage power lines believe that those lines may cause health problems.
This answer choice does not directly address the strength of the magnetic fields or their potential health effects. It focuses on the beliefs of people living near power lines, which is not directly relevant to evaluating the public health official's argument.

(C) Whether high-voltage power lines are routed near residential dwellings in urban areas.
This answer choice provides information about the proximity of power lines to residential dwellings in urban areas. While it may be interesting to know, it does not directly address the strength of the magnetic fields or their potential health effects.

(D) What specific diseases or conditions are suspected by some researchers to result from exposure to magnetic fields from high-voltage power lines.
This answer choice focuses on the specific diseases or conditions that researchers suspect are linked to exposure to magnetic fields from high-voltage power lines. While it provides useful information, it does not directly evaluate the argument about the strength of the magnetic fields compared to those in homes.

(E) What is the average strength of magnetic fields in workplaces that are not located near high-voltage power lines.
This answer choice provides information about the average strength of magnetic fields in workplaces without power lines. While it may be interesting to know, it does not directly evaluate the argument about the strength of the magnetic fields compared to those in homes.

Among the given answer choices, option (A) stands out as the most useful for evaluating the public health official's argument. It directly addresses the strength of magnetic fields in homes without power lines and their potential health effects. By comparing the health effects of magnetic fields in homes without power lines to those near high-voltage power lines, we can better assess the likelihood of health problems caused by living near power lines.

Therefore, the most useful answer choice to evaluate the public health official's argument is (A) Whether magnetic fields in homes that are not located near high-voltage power lines can cause health problems for the residents of those homes.

Let's analyze each option:

(A) Is there any variety of Beef imported into Melania that is also produced in Melania?
This question addresses the possibility of sourcing beef domestically rather than relying on imports. However, it does not directly evaluate the lawmaker's argument about the cost-effectiveness of the agency or the rejection rate. Therefore, it is not the most useful question for evaluating the lawmaker's argument.

(B) Has the Beef Importation Board, over the last several years, reduced its operating costs by eliminating inefficiencies within the agency itself?
This question focuses on the agency's operating costs and whether they have been reduced by eliminating inefficiencies. It directly addresses the cost-effectiveness aspect of the lawmaker's argument and provides relevant information. Therefore, it could be useful in evaluating the lawmaker's argument.

(C) Does the possibility of having merchandise rejected by the Beef Importation Board deter many Beef exporters from shipping substandard Beef to Melania?
This question evaluates the effectiveness of the agency's quality control by considering whether the possibility of rejection deters exporters from shipping substandard beef. It directly addresses the rejection rate mentioned in the lawmaker's argument and provides insights into the agency's impact. Therefore, this question is the most useful for evaluating the lawmaker's argument.

(D) Are there any exporters of Beef to Melania whose merchandise is never rejected by the Beef Importation Board?
This question focuses on the possibility of some exporters consistently avoiding rejections from the agency. While it provides information about specific exporters, it does not directly evaluate the cost-effectiveness or the overall impact of the agency. Therefore, it is not the most useful question for evaluating the lawmaker's argument.

(E) How is the Beef rejected by the Beef Importation Board disposed of?
This question addresses the process of disposing of the rejected beef. While it may provide insights into the agency's operations, it does not directly evaluate the cost-effectiveness or the impact of the agency as mentioned in the lawmaker's argument. Therefore, it is not the most useful question for evaluating the lawmaker's argument.

In conclusion, option (C) is the most useful question for evaluating the lawmaker's argument.

To evaluate the result, we need to identify the factor that could potentially explain why the plants in the urban greenhouse grew more slowly than those in the rural greenhouse, despite the elimination of sulfur dioxide.

Let's examine each answer choice:

(A) The urban school was located in a part of the city in which levels of sulfur dioxide in the air were usually far lower than is typical for urban areas.

This answer choice suggests that the urban school's location had lower levels of sulfur dioxide compared to typical urban areas. However, the experiment has already eliminated sulfur dioxide from the greenhouse air. Therefore, this factor is not relevant to explaining the slower growth of plants in the urban greenhouse.

(B) At both schools, the plants in the greenhouses grew much more quickly than did plants planted outdoors in plots near the greenhouse.

This answer choice compares the growth of greenhouse plants with plants grown outside near the greenhouse. However, it does not provide any information about the difference in growth between the urban and rural greenhouses. Therefore, this answer choice does not help us evaluate the result.

(C) The urban class conducting the experiment was larger than the rural class conducting the experiment.

The size of the classes conducting the experiment is unrelated to the growth of plants in the greenhouses. This information does not explain why the plants in the urban greenhouse grew more slowly. Therefore, this answer choice is not relevant to evaluating the result.

(D) Heavy vehicular traffic such as is found in cities constantly deposits grime on greenhouse windows, reducing the amount of light that reaches the plants inside.

This answer choice introduces a new factor that could explain the slower growth of plants in the urban greenhouse. The grime deposited on the greenhouse windows due to heavy vehicular traffic reduces the amount of light reaching the plants, which can significantly affect their growth. This factor is relevant to evaluating the result and provides a plausible explanation for the slower growth of plants in the urban greenhouse, even after eliminating sulfur dioxide.

(E) Because of the higher levels of sulfur dioxide in the air at the urban school, the air filters for the urban school's greenhouse were changed more frequently than those at the rural school.

This answer choice provides information about the frequency of air filter changes in the urban and rural greenhouses. While it indirectly relates to sulfur dioxide levels, it does not explain why the plants in the urban greenhouse grew more slowly. Therefore, this answer choice is not as important for evaluating the result compared to answer choice (D).

In conclusion, the most important factor to consider in evaluating the result is answer choice (D), which highlights the impact of grime deposition on greenhouse windows due to heavy vehicular traffic, leading to reduced light reaching the plants. This factor provides a plausible explanation for the slower growth of plants in the urban greenhouse, even after eliminating sulfur dioxide.

(A) Manufacturers have refused to change the standard order of letters on the typewriter keyboard even though some people who have never learned to type find this arrangement of letters bewildering.

This option does not violate the principle expressed in the statement. The principle suggests that designers should make allowances for learned patterns of behavior to avoid inefficiency or danger. In this case, the standard order of letters on the typewriter keyboard has become a learned pattern of behavior for typists. Changing the arrangement could potentially lead to inefficiency and confusion for those who have learned to type.

(B) Government regulations require that crucial instruments in airplane cockpits be placed in exactly the same array in all commercial aircraft.

This option does not violate the principle either. Government regulations mandating a consistent array of crucial instruments in airplane cockpits actually align with the principle. Pilots and crew members are trained to operate aircraft based on a standardized array of instruments. Consistency ensures that they can quickly and efficiently respond to various situations without having to relearn instrument placement in different aircraft.

(C) Automobile manufacturers generally design for all of their automobiles a square or oblong ignition key and a round or oval luggage compartment key.

This option does not violate the principle either. Automobile manufacturers have established consistent shapes for ignition keys and luggage compartment keys, which can be considered learned patterns of behavior. Users become accustomed to these shapes, making it easier for them to identify and operate the keys. Consistency in design helps avoid confusion and inefficiency.

(D) The only traffic signs that are triangular in shape are "yield" signs.

This option does not violate the principle. While the shape of the "yield" sign is different from other traffic signs, it does not necessarily lead to inefficiency or danger. The triangular shape of "yield" signs has become a well-established convention, and drivers are trained to recognize and respond to them appropriately. This consistency in shape helps promote safety and efficient traffic flow.

(E) On some tape recorders, the "start" button is red and the "stop" button is yellow.

This option violates the principle expressed in the statement. The principle suggests that designers should make allowances for learned patterns of behavior. In this case, the convention is to associate red with "stop" and green with "go" due to the learned pattern from traffic lights. By using red for "start" and yellow for "stop," the tape recorder design goes against the established pattern, potentially causing confusion and inefficiency.

Therefore, the option that violates the principle expressed most clearly is (E) On some tape recorders, the "start" button is red and the "stop" button is yellow.

Statement 1: Although some nutritional facts about soft drinks are listed on their labels, exact caffeine content is not. Statement 2: Listing exact caffeine content would make it easier to limit, but not eliminate, one's caffeine intake. Statement 3: If it became easier for people to limit, but not eliminate, their caffeine intake, many people would do so, which would improve their health.

We are asked to determine which statement must be true based on the information provided.

(A) The health of at least some people would improve if exact caffeine content were listed on soft-drink labels. This statement aligns with the information given in the passage. If people were able to see the exact caffeine content on the labels, they would find it easier to limit their intake, which would improve their health. Therefore, statement (A) must be true.

(B) Many people will be unable to limit their caffeine intake if exact caffeine content is not listed on soft-drink labels. This statement is not necessarily true based on the information provided. While it is possible that some people may struggle to limit their caffeine intake without the exact content listed, the passage does not provide enough evidence to conclude that "many people" will be unable to do so.

(C) Many people will find it difficult to eliminate their caffeine intake if they have to guess exactly how much caffeine is in their soft drinks. This statement is not supported by the information in the passage. The passage states that listing the exact caffeine content would make it easier to limit caffeine intake, not eliminate it entirely. There is no mention of people having to guess the caffeine content.

(D) People who wish to eliminate, rather than simply limit, their caffeine intake would benefit if exact caffeine content were listed on soft-drink labels. This statement is a logical extension of the information provided. If people wish to eliminate caffeine intake entirely, knowing the exact content would help them achieve their goal. While this statement is likely true, it is not a necessary conclusion based on the information provided.

(E) The health of at least some people would worsen if everyone knew exactly how much caffeine was in their soft drinks. This statement is not supported by the passage. The passage only mentions that people would find it easier to limit their caffeine intake with the exact content listed, leading to improved health. It does not suggest that knowing the exact content would worsen anyone's health.

In summary, based on the information provided, the only statement that must be true is (A) "The health of at least some people would improve if exact caffeine content were listed on soft-drink labels."

(A) Humans should not intervene to protect bighorn sheep from mountain lions.
This option is a point of agreement between Sam and Meli, as both of them believe that humans should intervene to protect the bighorn sheep.

(B) The preservation of a species as a whole is more important than the loss of a few individuals.
There is no explicit disagreement between Sam and Meli regarding this statement. It is possible that both of them agree with this idea, as they are concerned about the survival of the bighorn sheep.

(C) The preservation of a predatory species is easier to ensure than the preservation of the species preyed upon.
There is no indication in the given statements that Sam and Meli have any disagreement about the relative ease of preserving the mountain lions or the bighorn sheep. So this option is not the point of disagreement.

(D) Any measures to limit the mountain lion population would likely push the species to extinction.
There is no clear disagreement between Sam and Meli about this statement. Both individuals might agree that limiting the mountain lion population could have detrimental effects. So this option is not the point of disagreement.

(E) If the population of mountain lions is not limited, the bighorn sheep species will not survive.
This option represents the point of disagreement between Sam and Meli. Sam believes that they should let nature take its course and hope the bighorn sheep survive, suggesting that not limiting the mountain lion population may not lead to the extinction of the bighorn sheep. On the other hand, Meli disagrees and believes that they should do what they can to ensure the survival of the bighorn sheep, implying that not limiting the mountain lion population will result in the demise of the bighorn sheep species.

Therefore, the correct answer is (E) If the population of mountain lions is not limited, the bighorn sheep species will not survive.

Let's break down each option and evaluate them one by one:

(A) A person who knows 2 foreign languages, but doesn't have any money.
This person has language skills that could potentially help them find employment abroad. However, since they lack the financial resources to support their emigration, they are likely to face significant challenges in relocating to another country. Therefore, they are likely to consider emigration as a viable option.

(B) A person who knows 2 foreign languages, but is afraid to travel.
Although this person has the language skills required to potentially find a job or better life abroad, their fear of traveling might deter them from pursuing emigration. Their fear acts as a barrier, making it unlikely for them to leave the country.

(C) A person who has no money to travel and knows a second language at an elementary level.
This person lacks both financial resources and advanced language skills. Without the necessary funds to support their emigration, combined with limited language proficiency, they are unlikely to consider leaving the country.

(D) A person who knows no foreign languages and has a suitable quantity of money.
This person possesses the financial means to emigrate, but they do not have any foreign language skills. While having money provides them with the resources to relocate, the absence of language proficiency may hinder their ability to find employment or adjust to a new country. However, given that they have the necessary financial resources, they are the least likely among the given options to emigrate.

(E) A person who has money to leave the country but is happy about his/her present situation.
Although this person has the financial means to emigrate, they are content with their current circumstances. This satisfaction would likely discourage them from considering emigration.

Therefore, after analyzing each option, we can conclude that option D, a person who knows no foreign languages but has a suitable quantity of money, is the least likely to emigrate.