Test: Method of Reasoning - GMAT MCQ

(A) Uncontroversial statements are useless in surveys:
This option suggests that uncontroversial statements are not valuable or helpful in surveys. However, the passage does not explicitly make this claim or imply that uncontroversial statements are useless. Instead, it focuses on the ambiguity of the statement and how it leads to ambiguous responses.

(B) Every statement is amenable to several interpretations:
This option states that every statement can be understood in multiple ways. While it is true that statements can sometimes be interpreted differently by different people, the passage specifically points out the ambiguity of the statement being used in the survey. It does not make a broad claim that every statement is always open to multiple interpretations.

(C) Responses to surveys are always unambiguous if the survey’s questions are well-phrased:
This option suggests that well-phrased survey questions always lead to unambiguous responses. However, the passage describes how the statement in the survey is ambiguous, indicating that even a well-phrased question can generate ambiguous responses.

(D) Responses people give to poorly phrased questions are likely to be ambiguous:
This option aligns closely with the reasoning in the passage. The passage mentions that the survey's responses are ambiguous due to the ambiguous nature of the statement. It implies that poorly phrased questions can result in unclear or ambiguous responses, which supports option (D).

(E) Statements about psychic phenomena can always be given naturalistic interpretations:
This option suggests that statements about psychic phenomena can always be explained in naturalistic terms. While the passage mentions telekinesis and the naturalistic interpretation of the statement, it does not make a general claim that all statements about psychic phenomena can be naturally interpreted. Therefore, option (E) is not the most accurate representation of the passage's reasoning.

Based on the explanations above, option (D) is the proposition that aligns most closely with the reasoning provided in the passage.

(A) undermining a view by showing that its general acceptance would lead to undesirable consequences:
This option suggests that the argument undermines a view by demonstrating that if the view were widely accepted, it would result in negative outcomes. However, the argument does not present an undesirable consequence of accepting the opposing view. Instead, it challenges the assumption that equality would lead to uniformity and blandness.

(B) rebutting an objection by attacking the assumption on which it is said to be based:
This option aligns closely with the reasoning in the passage. The argument addresses an objection raised against efforts to create a more egalitarian society by attacking the assumption that equality necessitates uniformity. It counters this assumption by arguing that promoting complementary human interests can enhance diversity and achieve greater equality.

(C) attacking a view by claiming that those who propose it are motivated only by self-interest:
This option suggests that the argument attacks a view by asserting that its proponents are motivated solely by self-interest. However, the passage does not make any claims about the motivations of those who hold the opposing view. It focuses on challenging the assumption about equality and uniformity.

(D) claiming that whatever is true of a group must be true of each of the members of the group:
This option suggests that the argument asserts that whatever is true of a group applies to each individual within that group. However, the passage does not make a claim about group characteristics or generalize from a group to its individual members. It primarily focuses on challenging the assumption about equality and diversity.

(E) undermining an apparent counterexample to a universal claim:
This option suggests that the argument undermines a counterexample that challenges a universal claim. However, the passage does not present a counterexample or engage in discussions of universal claims. It primarily addresses an objection and challenges the assumption about equality and uniformity.

Based on the explanations above, option (B) is the most accurate representation of the political scientist's argument in the passage.

(A) disputing certain factual claims made in the editorial:
This option suggests that the author of the passage disagrees with specific factual claims made in the editorial. However, the passage does not directly dispute any specific factual claims. Instead, it focuses on pointing out an inconsistency in the editorial's stance on academic freedom.

(B) pointing out an apparent inconsistency in the editorial:
This option aligns closely with the reasoning in the passage. The author highlights the inconsistency in the editorial's position on academic freedom in the United States versus the Soviet Union. By contrasting the defense of restrictions on academic freedom in the United States while criticizing the Soviet government's stance, the author points out the apparent inconsistency in the editorial.

(C) describing an alleged exception to a general claim made in the editorial:
This option suggests that the author describes an alleged exception to a general claim made in the editorial. However, the passage does not present an alleged exception to a general claim. Instead, it focuses on the inconsistency between the editorial's positions on academic freedom in the United States and the Soviet Union.

(D) refuting an assumption on which the argument of the editorial appears to have been based:
This option suggests that the author refutes an assumption underlying the argument made in the editorial. However, the passage does not explicitly refute an assumption made in the editorial. It primarily criticizes the inconsistency between the editorial's positions rather than directly challenging the assumptions behind the argument.

(E) drawing conclusions from the editorial different from the conclusion drawn by the writer of the editorial:
This option suggests that the author draws different conclusions from the editorial than those drawn by the writer of the editorial. While the passage does provide a critical assessment of the editorial, it does not explicitly present different conclusions. Instead, it highlights the inconsistency in the editorial's stance on academic freedom.

Based on the explanations above, option (B) is the most accurate representation of how the author criticizes the editorial in the passage.

(A) calling into question the motives of the horse breeders cited:
This option suggests that the veterinarian questions the motives or intentions of the horse breeders mentioned in the argument. However, the veterinarian's argument does not explicitly address or question the motives of the breeders. The focus is on presenting a different perspective and introducing additional considerations.

(B) demonstrating that the horse breeders’ conclusion is inconsistent with the evidence advanced to support it:
This option aligns closely with the reasoning in the passage. The veterinarian challenges the conclusion reached by the horse breeders by presenting evidence that contradicts their conclusion. The veterinarian argues that the severity of the disease can be controlled through diet and medication and highlights the positive aspects of the defect, such as producing horses of extreme beauty in high demand in the horse show industry. This contradicts the breeders' conclusion that horses with the defect should not be bred.

(C) providing evidence that contradicts the horse breeders' evidence:
This option suggests that the veterinarian presents evidence that contradicts the evidence presented by the horse breeders. However, the passage does not directly present evidence that contradicts the breeders' evidence. Instead, the veterinarian introduces additional evidence and considerations to counter the breeders' conclusion.

(D) disputing the accuracy of evidence on which the horse breeders' argument depends:
This option suggests that the veterinarian disputes the accuracy of the evidence relied upon by the horse breeders. However, the passage does not explicitly address the accuracy of the breeders' evidence. Instead, it presents alternative perspectives and considerations to challenge the breeders' conclusion.

(E) introducing considerations that lead to a conclusion different from that of the horse breeders' argument:
This option aligns closely with the reasoning in the passage. The veterinarian introduces additional considerations, such as the ability to control the severity of the disease through diet and medication and the demand for horses with the defect in the show industry. These considerations lead to a conclusion different from that of the horse breeders' argument, suggesting that horses with the genetic defect should still be bred.

Based on the explanations above, option (E) is the most accurate representation of the technique employed by the veterinarian in the passage.

(A) It expresses the conclusion of the argument:
This option suggests that the claim about private corporations expresses the main conclusion of the argument. However, the claim about private corporations is not the primary conclusion of the argument. Instead, it serves as supporting information for the main conclusion that public funds should be used to support pure science research.

(B) It explains what is meant by the expression "pure research" in the context of the argument:
This option suggests that the claim about private corporations provides an explanation of the term "pure research" within the argument. However, the claim about private corporations does not directly define or explain the term "pure research." It presents a limitation of private corporations regarding their support for activities without short-term profits.

(C) It distracts attention from the point at issue by introducing a different but related goal:
This option suggests that the claim about private corporations diverts attention from the main issue by introducing a different but related goal. However, the claim about private corporations does not introduce a different goal. It supports the main point about the need for public funds by highlighting the limitations of private corporations in supporting pure science research.

(D) It supports the conclusion by ruling out an alternative way of achieving the benefits mentioned:
This option aligns closely with the reasoning in the passage. The claim about private corporations supports the conclusion that public funds should be used to support pure science research by ruling out the possibility of private corporations undertaking such support. It presents private corporations' tendency to focus on short-term profits as a reason why public funding is necessary to achieve the benefits of pure science research.

(E) It illustrates a case where unfortunate consequences result from a failure to accept the recommendation offered:
This option suggests that the claim about private corporations serves as an illustration of the unfortunate consequences resulting from a failure to accept the recommendation offered. However, the claim about private corporations does not explicitly illustrate any consequences. It primarily provides information to support the argument's conclusion about public funds.

Based on the explanations above, option (D) is the most accurate representation of the function served by the claim about private corporations in the argument.

A. A person buys an automobile to commute to work even though public transportation is quick and reliable. This option doesn't align with the analysis provided. The situation described involves sacrificing comfort for the sake of appearances, while this option involves choosing personal convenience (owning a car) over public transportation.

B. A parent buys a car seat for a young child because it is more colorful and more comfortable for the child than the other car seats on the market, though no safer. This option doesn't align with the analysis provided either. While it involves sacrificing safety for comfort and aesthetics, it does not specifically mention sacrificing comfort for the sake of appearances.

C. A couple buys a particular wine even though their favorite wine is less expensive and better tasting because they think it will impress their dinner guests. As mentioned earlier, this option best matches the analysis. The couple is willing to sacrifice their preference for a less expensive and better-tasting wine in order to impress their guests and maintain a certain image.

D. A person sets her thermostat at a low temperature during the winter because she is concerned about the environmental damage caused by using fossil fuels to heat her home. This option does not align with the analysis. It involves sacrificing personal comfort (keeping the home warmer) for the sake of environmental concerns, rather than appearances.

E. An acrobat convinces the circus that employs him to purchase an expensive outfit for him so that he can wear it during his act to impress the audience. While this option involves impressing others, it doesn't specifically mention sacrificing comfort. The focus is more on the acrobat's desire to have an expensive outfit to enhance his performance and create a visual impact on the audience.

In summary, option C is the closest match to the analysis provided, as it involves sacrificing personal preferences (in this case, taste and cost) for the sake of appearances.

A. a personal attack against Dr. McMahon.
This option is not applicable because Annette's statement does not involve a personal attack on Dr. McMahon. Annette is criticizing Dr. McMahon's claim and the principle he violated, rather than attacking him personally.

B. a general principle.
This is the correct option. Annette's conclusion is based on a general principle that credible scientists must be open to the possibility of their theories being contradicted by future tests. She argues that Dr. McMahon discredited himself by claiming his theory is incontrovertible, which goes against this general principle.

C. ambiguous wording.
This option is not applicable. Annette's statement is clear and does not contain any ambiguous wording that would affect her conclusion about Dr. McMahon's credibility.

D. an attack against Dr. McMahon's experimental data.
This option is not applicable. Annette's statement does not specifically mention Dr. McMahon's experimental data. Her criticism is focused on his claim of the theory being incontrovertible, rather than attacking the specific experimental data he may have presented.

E. the pre-emptive rejection of his theory.
This option is not applicable. Annette's statement does not indicate a pre-emptive rejection of Dr. McMahon's theory. Instead, she criticizes his claim of the theory being incontrovertible, which goes against the expected behavior of a credible scientist.

In summary, option B is the correct choice, as Annette's conclusion is based on a general principle about the behavior of credible scientists and how Dr. McMahon's claim violated that principle.

A. questioning how the evidence Helen uses for a claim was gathered.
This option is not applicable to Randi's response. Randi does not question the evidence or sources Helen uses to support her claim. Instead, Randi presents a counter-argument based on a different analogy.

B. disputing the scope of Helen's analogy by presenting another analogy.
This is the correct option. Randi disputes the scope of Helen's analogy by presenting the analogy of reading fiction being similar to watching a sitcom. By offering this contrasting analogy, Randi challenges the idea that all reading is equivalent to an intellectual investment, suggesting that reading fiction may be considered as wasted time.

C. arguing that Helen's reasoning ultimately leads to an absurd conclusion.
This option is not applicable. Randi's response does not focus on Helen's reasoning leading to an absurd conclusion. Instead, Randi presents a different perspective by offering an alternative analogy.

D. drawing an analogy to an example presented by Helen.
This option is not applicable. Randi does not draw an analogy to an example presented by Helen. Instead, Randi presents a contrasting analogy to challenge the scope of Helen's analogy.

E. denying the relevance of an example presented by Helen.
This option is not applicable. Randi does not deny the relevance of the example presented by Helen. Instead, Randi offers a counter-example and challenges the applicability of Helen's analogy to all types of reading.

In summary, option B is the correct choice, as Randi disputes the scope of Helen's analogy by presenting a different analogy that challenges the idea that all reading is equivalent to an intellectual investment.

(A) demonstrating that Lance assumes the very thing he sets out to prove. This option is not applicable to Frank's argument. Frank does not demonstrate that Lance assumes the very thing he sets out to prove. Instead, Frank focuses on the contradiction within Lance's conclusion.

(B) showing that Lance's conclusion involves him in a contradiction. This is the correct option. Frank's argument aims to show that Lance's conclusion leads to a contradiction. By pointing out that Lance's conclusion itself becomes a general rule with no exceptions, Frank demonstrates that Lance's conclusion contradicts itself.

(C) showing that no general rule can have exceptions. This option is not applicable to Frank's argument. Frank does not argue that no general rule can have exceptions. Instead, he focuses on the contradiction within Lance's specific conclusion.

(D) establishing that experience teaches us the opposite of what Lance concludes. This option is not applicable to Frank's argument. Frank does not argue that experience teaches us the opposite of what Lance concludes. Instead, he focuses on the contradiction within Lance's conclusion.

(E) showing that it has no implications for any real cases. This option is not applicable to Frank's argument. Frank does not argue that Lance's conclusion has no implications for any real cases. Instead, he focuses on the contradiction within Lance's conclusion.

In summary, option (B) is the correct choice, as Frank's argument aims to counter Lance's conclusion by showing that it involves a contradiction.

(A) He presents a counterexample: This option suggests that the author presents a specific instance or example that contradicts the claim made by market analysts. However, in the given statement, the author does not provide a counterexample to disprove the claim. Instead, they propose an alternative explanation.

(B) He presents statistical evidence: This option implies that the author presents data or statistics to support their argument or to challenge the claim of market analysts. However, the given statement does not mention any statistical evidence to support the author's position.

(C) He suggests an alternative causal linkage: This option accurately describes the author's method. The author challenges the claim made by market analysts by proposing an alternative explanation for the sudden drops in the stock market, which involves the phases of the moon. They suggest that there is a causal relationship between lunar phases and market fluctuations, rather than solely attributing them to political crises.

(D) He appeals to generally accepted beliefs: This option suggests that the author relies on commonly held beliefs or widely accepted notions to question the claim of market analysts. However, the given statement does not mention any such appeal to generally accepted beliefs.

(E) He demonstrates that market analysts' reports are unreliable: This option implies that the author provides evidence or arguments to show that the reports produced by market analysts are not trustworthy or accurate. However, the given statement does not address the reliability of market analysts' reports. The author primarily focuses on proposing an alternative explanation for market fluctuations.