Test: Additional Evidence - GMAT MCQ

“Whether Hole-In-One’s owners considered the potential financial impacts of taking a controversial political stand before sharing their position online” is interesting, but it does not clearly bear on the potential financial impacts experienced by Hole-In-One Donuts.

Perhaps the owners considered these impacts but decided that they would be minor – the answer to “whether the ensuing controversy will be detrimental to Hole-In-One’s profits” might be “yes.” Or perhaps the owners considered, decided that the impacts would be majorly detrimental, but ultimately decided that the principle was more important than the money. Or perhaps the owners considered, decided that the impacts would be negligible, but were simply wrong. There is no reason to assume that the owners are infallible authorities when it comes to the impact that a political controversy might have on their company’s bottom line.

Then again, perhaps the owners considered, expected no negative impacts, and were correct – producing a “no” answer to the underlying question.

Or perhaps the owners didn’t consider the impacts at all, but again we know nothing about “whether the ensuing controversy will be detrimental to Hole-In-One’s profits.” The answer could still, just as easily, be “yes” or “no.”

It’s simply not possible to take B are solid evidence in any direction.

Answer A is relevant in a very direct way. If Hole-In-One’s customers share the boycotters’ views, then these customers may be more apt to join the boycott and thereby reduce Hole-In-One’s profits. If the customers do not share these views, and if, to our knowledge, only “people opposed to this political view” are going to boycott, then there is no clear reason to expect that these customers would join in and no reason to think that a boycott by people who presumably were not patrons of Hole-In-One to begin with would reduce Hole-In-One’s profits.

Answer C suggests a different way in which the boycott may or may not harm Hole-In-One’s profits. If enough new customers will be drawn to Hole-In-One in response to the political stand, then the net impact of the “ensuing controversy” should not be negative. Otherwise, we may expect that the controversy will indeed negatively impact Hole-In-One’s profits.

Answer D is circumstantial but still useful. If “comparable businesses in Sealett… have taken similar stands,” then their resulting experiences have some relevance to what we may expect will happen to Hole-In-One. If those other businesses lost revenue, then this suggests that boycotts may have been effective and/or that these views may be unpopular enough in Sealett to cause customers to go elsewhere (without bringing in sufficient new customers to compensate). If, instead, other businesses have not suffered adverse impacts on revenue, then it seems likelier that Hole-In-One will not suffer revenue – and thus profit – losses either.

Answer E offers another mechanism by which Hole-In-One may avoid adverse consequences. Even if the boycott has a negative impact on revenue, the question ultimately asks about “Hole-In-One’s profits.” If Hole-In-One reaps costs savings through reduced advertising expenditures in light of the free publicity, and if those cost savings outweigh any reductions in revenue, then Hole-In-One should not expect to suffer reduced profits. However, if the controversy does not enable Hole-In-One to cut costs by enough to counteract lost revenues, then we may expect that the controversy will cause Hole-In-One’s profits will decline.

TechCorp company’s long-standing goals was to obtain at least 50 percent of its annual revenues from sales of products that are no more than three years old. Last year, TechCorp achieved this goal,but didn't introduced any new products during the year.

The following, best explaining the results described above is;

(A) None of the company’s competitors introduced any new products during the last year. ( we can't say for sure that if the techcorp company didn't introduced any product, their competitors also didn't, which resulted in the company's revenue to turn up) (Out of context)

(B) Scientists at the company report that they are close to breakthroughs that should result in several new products during the coming year. (No statistics mentioned regarding scientists of the techcorp company to testify the statement, plus that didn't explain why company is able to get the desired revenue) (Incorrect)

(C) Sales of some of the company’s older products were discontinued during that last year. (This can be the reason why techcorp company products were sold, since the new products might take time to make its niche, techcorp used that period to sold off their products earning revenue) (CORRECT)

(D) The company has introduced very few new products during the last three years. ( No Given Statistics and parameter to conclude this) (Out of Scope)

(E) Company spending on research and development has increased sharply over the past five years. (Again we have no parameter to draw out this conclusion, nor it has any validation to the company's revenue last year). (incorrect)

This is essentially a suppressed premise question; we are asked to supply a premise (evidence) that would favor the new theory over the traditional theory. The old theory predicts that if there are predators in an area then the shells should have the same color as the seafloor. The new theory, based on heat absorption, predicts that 1) brown shells will be more prevalent in rough waters, and 2) white shells will be more numerous in calm waters. Now we work through the answer-choices, looking for one that contradicts our summary of the old theory and supports our summary of the new theory.

Choice (A) has predators, a dark seafloor, and, as the old theory predicts, dark-shelled snails. It thus supports the old theory. Additionally, it has dark shells in calm waters which contradicts the new theory. Eliminate (A).

Next, choice (B) contradicts 2) of the new theory. Eliminate (B).

Next, choice (C) contradicts 1) of the new theory. Eliminate (C).

Next, choice (D) satisfies 2) of the new theory—light-shelled snails in calm waters. It also directly contradicts the old theory, which predicts that with many predators and a dark bottom the shells should be dark. So the answer is probably (D), but it’s prudent to check the last choice since we are looking for the best answer.

Choice (E) satisfies 2) of the new theory, but it also satisfies the old theory, which predicts that with many predators and a light bottom the shells should be light. Eliminate (E).

(A) the amount of time construction companies in each of the zones need to form a presentation aiming at earning participation in a new building project

Incorrect.

To solve this Investigation question, first break down the argument. The first two sentences are premises, citing facts. The last sentence uses the conclusion phrase It can be said that, letting us know that it's the conclusion:

• Premise A: to build a given building, companies in Zone A take longer than those in Zone B +
• Premise B: the building equipment in Zone A is better than that in Zone B =
• Conclusion: Zone A construction companies are not as good as those in Zone B 
• Vital factor: ?

You are required to find the factor which is most crucial to the author's conclusion. The correct answer is an unknown factor which could support or weaken the conclusion depending on its outcome.

This answer choice introduces a factor that is out of the scope of the argument. The time it takes to form a presentation cannot affect the time it takes to build the actual building.

(B) the perception and expertise utilized by the manufacturers of the building equipment used by construction companies in the respective zones Incorrect.

Answering the question in this answer choice would not help us determine whether the Zone A construction companies were less skillful than those in Zone B. We are already told that the equipment in Zone A is better than that in Zone B so the abilities of the manufacturers are irrelevant.

(C) the cost of the materials used in the construction of a standard building intended for housing purposes in each zone
Incorrect.

This answer choice is insignificant to the argument's conclusion and cannot, therefore, determine its validity. The costs, revenues, or profits of construction are not dealt with in the argument.

(D) the efficiency of the offices of the respective zones involved in processing the bureaucratic paperwork required for a construction project

This answer choice introduces a factor that can affect time and, therefore, is relevant to the conclusion. If the offices on Zone A are just as efficient as those in Zone B, then it is more likely that the lengthy building process in Zone A is related to the actual construction management and workers.

However, if Zone A has terrible bureaucracy and more red-tape than Zone B, then their construction companies are probably less to blame for taking a long time to finish projects.

(E) the style of architecture implemented in the creation of a typical building constructed in each of the zones Incorrect.

To solve this Investigation question, first break down the argument. The first two sentences are premises, citing facts. The last sentence uses the conclusion phrase It can be said that, letting us know that it's the conclusion:
 

• Premise A: to build a given building, companies in Zone A take longer than those in Zone B +
• Premise B: the building equipment in Zone A is better than that in Zone B =
  Conclusion: Zone A construction companies are not as good as those in Zone B
• Vital factor: ?

You are required to find the factor which is most crucial to the author's conclusion. The correct answer is an unknown factor which could support or weaken the conclusion depending on its outcome.

This answer choice would not help us determine whether the author's conclusion is right since it is already answered by premise A. The argument is based on the comparison of buildings with the same design. Therefore, architecture has been excluded from the argument and cannot be a factor influencing the conclusion.

(A) The passage states that the infection can be spread by coughing. The flu virus, therefore, can reach the other
passengers in the “closely-packed environment” before it enters any filters that might kill the virus.

(B) CORRECT. Vaccines provide significant protection against developing the virus (not 100% protection, but you
are asked to “minimize” the impact of air travel, not eliminate it entirely). If all passengers are vaccinated against the
virus, many of those who otherwise would have developed the disease will not, and, therefore, won’t spread it to
others.

(C) Anyone can contract the virus and subsequently spread it; the mentioned populations are merely “especially
vulnerable” to it. Infected people traveling to another place can infect children, senior citizens, and others who have
stayed in their home regions.

(D) The passage states that the infection can be spread by coughing; while it may be true that the virus can also spread
via hand contact, this information is not stated in the passage.

(E) The passage states that people who develop symptoms before travel begins likely would not make the trip; weeding
out those with observable symptoms, then, won’t “minimize” the role of air travel because there aren’t that many
people in this category. The larger danger is those who may be infected but have not yet developed symptoms.

Karl’s response relies on two alternative but inter-related assumptions: (1) the reruns are likely to be popular enough to compete with Connie’s favorite program, and (2) Connie’s favorite program will not in fact be popular.

Choice (E) provides evidence that helps affirm both of these assumptions by suggesting that the reruns might very well be popular enough to draw the viewing audience away from Connie’s favorite program, thus rendering it less popular. Admittedly, choice (E) would provide even greater support if it explicitly indicated that one popular program can draw viewers away from another. Nevertheless, choice (E) is the best among the five answer choices.

Discussion: This argument commits the classic GMAT error of confusing “effect" with "cause”; the argument mentions that young adults with high self-confidence had stronger social skills and concludes that self-confidence is the “cause” that has an “effect” on social skills; the argument ignores the possibility that social skills may be the cause that has an effect on self-confidence. In order to establish a cause-effect relationship implied in the argument, the reverse possibility needs to be evaluated.

A. Trap. If young adults typically rate themselves higher on self-confidence than professionals would, it indicates that all young adults involved in the study are likely to have inflated their self-confidence ratings; however, this answer choice makes no suggestion regarding the relationship between self-confidence and social skills and thus would not help evaluate the conclusion. Because this answer choice would not help evaluate the conclusion, this answer choice is incorrect.

B. Trap. This answer choice, suggesting that there are other factors that influence social skills, or the perception thereof, is applicable to all young adults regardless of their self-confidence; so, this answer choice fails to make any suggestion regarding the relationship between the two; hence, this answer choice would not help evaluate the conclusion. Because this answer choice would not help evaluate the conclusion, this answer choice is incorrect.

C. Correct. If poor social skills significantly lower the self-confidence of young adults, it indicates that social skills are the “cause” that has an “effect” on self-confidence, thus reversing the cause-effect relationship implied in the argument and casting doubt on the conclusion that self-confidence helps young adults navigate situations that may hamper their social skills; so, this answer choice would help evaluate the conclusion. Because this answer choice would help evaluate the conclusion, this answer choice is correct.

D. Trap. This answer choice, suggesting that situations in which social skills are tested temporarily affect young adults’ ratings of their overall social skills, is applicable to all young adults regardless of their self-confidence; so, this answer choice fails to make any suggestion regarding the relationship between the two; hence, this answer choice would not help evaluate the conclusion. Because this answer choice would not help evaluate the conclusion, this answer choice is incorrect.

E. This answer choice, suggesting that there exists a level of high self-confidence that tends to reduce overall social skills, indicates that, in some cases, self-confidence hampers social skills, thus weakening the conclusion; however, this answer choice is applicable only beyond a certain level and is thus, limited in scope; hence, this answer choice makes no suggestion regarding the generally-applicable relationship between self-confidence and social skills and thus would not help evaluate the conclusion. Because this answer choice would not help evaluate the conclusion, this answer choice is incorrect.

Seems to be a bit of back and forth on this, so I thought I'd try to take it on using the (dreaded) process. I know, I know. Nothing's less fun then taking notes...but let's do it anyway:

Conclusion: Major cause of decline in LC was decline in lead gas [It's pretty common to find the conclusion in the question stem...so always be on the lookout]

Premises: Decline between 75 and 85. Feds said industrial discharge down in 1975. 75% drop in lead gasoline between 75 and 85.

Assumption: Industrial discharge didn't do it. [Basically, we're looking for something to downplay the importance of the legislation.]

(A) The level of lead contamination in United States rivers fell sharply in both 1975 and 1983.
Problem: This would possibly weaken. We wouldn't want to see sharp declines, because it sounds like the drop was gradual (as lead gas was phased out).

(B) Most of the decline in industrial discharges of lead occurred before 1976, but the largest decline in the level of river contamination occurred between 1980 and 1985.
Answer: Well, if the industrial decline occurred before 1976, that means that the effect of the legislation was almost immediate. But if the contamination dropped mostly between 80 and 85, that could only be because of the rise of unleaded gas.

(C) Levels of lead contamination in rivers fell sharply in 1975-1976 and rose very slightly over the next nine years.
Problem: This weakens a lot. This sounds like the legislation had a big effect, and then nothing happened for the rest of the time. We wanted gas to slowly make things better, but they're actually getting worse!

(D) Levels of lead contamination rose in those rivers where there was reduced river flow due to drought.
Problem: This doesn't connect to either industry or gas, so it's irrelevant.

(E) Although the use of leaded gasoline declined 75 percent between 1975 and 1985, 80 percent of the decline took place in 1985.
Problem: Alright. Here's the toughie. The problem is that this doesn't actually add any information that we didn't have in the passage itself. Looks like it does, doesn't it? But think about it. We already knew the use of leaded gasoline declined 75 percent between 75 and 85 (that part is LITERALLY in the passage word for word). Then we're just told that most of it happened at the end. So what? That doesn't tell us anything about the contamination itself. What we really wanted was to WEAKEN the influence of the legislation, which B does.

Test takers' critical thinking and analytical skills are put to the test in the GMAT's critical reasoning part. The candidate needs strong cognitive abilities to come up with a coherent answer.

Pre thinking:
Since India produces a significant amount of the world's tea, the author argues that if its exports of tea are curtailed, the supply of tea will be impacted globally. It is causing prices to increase even if global demand for tea remains the same.
The fact that India is a significant tea exporter is not mentioned in the passage. We are unsure of India's share of global tea exports. What if tea exports from India make up a negligible part of global tea exports? In that event, other major tea exporters would be able to satisfy global demand even if Indian tea exports drastically decreased in volume. The lack of a significant supply constraint may prevent a surge in tea prices globally.

Let's look at each option separately.

A: Inaccurate
It is not the correct choice. Even in the absence of a decline in the global demand for tea, the demand for coffee can rise. This alternative has no bearing on the result and is therefore beyond the scope of this paragraph.
B: Correct
Option B is correct because this choice is in line with the pre-thinking evaluate question.
C: Inaccurate
The conclusion is unaffected by the causes of India's decreased tea production. Incorrect Choice.
D: Inaccurate
This choice is irrelevant and incorrect. Past oscillations may have occurred for a variety of causes and have no bearing on the current circumstance. Also beyond scope is this decision.
E: Inaccurate
E is incorrect. These additional producers might not be significant tea exporters. The information is just distorted by this decision. The statement "India is one of the few big producers of tea." already informs us that there are other significant tea producers.

Reading the question: This may be a question in which you find it natural to skip back and forth between the prompt and the stem. Regardless, we'll take our time and read everything before moving on. There is going to be an "obsolescence of skills." How can the company prepare for it? That's going to depend on how exactly it's going to happen. There are two critical details: wearable devices and two years. The answer will be related to or at least accommodate those points. If you identify one or more details that are critical to the argument or question at hand, you can immediately make those details your filter to evaluate the answer choices.

Applying our filter to the answer choices, we see that (A) and (B) both have time frames, and hence are at least vaguely connected to "two years." In (A), the training comes too late, so that's wrong. Choice (B) mentions two years, which sounds nice, but the actual measure taken just adds fuel to the fire by getting more wearable devices; there's no remedy offered for the obsolescence of skills. So (B) is out. In (C), a survey might determine the extent of the problem, but it doesn't provide a solution to the problem. Choice (D) sounds fancier but amounts to the same problem as (C). Finally, (E) gives a rather broad promise: any training necessary. Rather unrealistic. But the stem says, "If feasible." If (E) were feasible, it would be able to solve this problem and all kinds of problems.