Critical Reasoning Practice Test 1

The correct answer is (C). (C) strengthens the argument because it rules out a counter-argument. If few people depend upon purchasing game meat, then the regulations on the sale of game meat will only affect the food safety of a small population. However, if a larger population is affected by the safety of game meat, the argument for regulation is stronger.

The correct answer is (E). Consider the job functions in the answer choices and decide which one requires something that conflicts with working on Saturdays or Sundays. Since banks are typically closed on Sundays, any employees choosing to work on Sunday would find it difficult (if not impossible) to fulfill their required functions. In (E), if a worker's position requires daily correspondence with banks, then the worker would be unable to fulfill his or her job function on a Sunday, when most banks are closed.

(E) is the correct response. We can express the information in the passage as a series of inequalities: Cheddar > Gouda. Brie > Camembert. If Brie > Cheddar, it does not necessarily follow that Cheddar > Camembert. Just because we know Brie has more fat than either, doesn’t mean we know their relationship to each other.

The correct answer is (A). If Nannerl had demonstrated considerable harpsichord and pianoforte skills on tours with her brother, then finding diary entries and correspondence that indicate that Nannerl was as prolific as her brother will tend to suggest that both Nannerl and her brother were geniuses and that Nannerl would have been recognized as a genius by posterity if her works had survived.

Answer choice B is not correct. Just because Wolfgang inherited musical abilities from his parents does not mean that his sister would have inherited the same abilities. Nannerl could have inherited traits (that were suppressed in her parents) from her grandparents who were not as talented as her parents.

The correct answer is (B). This argument tells us that learning to play an instrument at a young age is a positive influence on a child's academic abilities, based on the finding that students who learned to play the violin performed better than students who did not. For this argument to hold logically, it must be the case that what is true of the violin is true of all musical instruments. For the arguer to jump from "violin" to "musical instrument" presupposes that the former is fully representative of the latter. This assumption is necessary for the conclusion to hold. None of the other answer choices presents a necessary assumption. Answer choice (C) does not present a necessary assumption since the conclusion will still hold even if high academic prowess does not result from skills nurtured while learning to play an instrument.

The correct answer is (C). The argument begins with two pieces of evidence (two colored moths in the industrial area, only one in the residential area). Then it continues with what turns out to be the conclusion of the argument (the black moth is a new evolution). The second sentence provides an interpretation of the given evidence that supports the conclusion. The final sentence provides an additional piece of evidence, which could also support the conclusion.

The correct answer is (E). Eatco executives have assured the sales staff that they will continue to make at least as much money on the commission structure as they did on the salaried structure. Since commissions depend on each salesperson maximizing his or her own sales, if Eatco hired new salespeople, it could reduce the commissions received by the current sales staff. (D) is not correct because the salespeople will actually have more opportunities to sell restaurant equipment if several new restaurants open in the area.

The correct response is answer choice (D). The psychologists’ hypothesis is that “a juvenile delinquent is more likely than youth in the general population to become a diagnosed sociopath as an adult”. The reason given to support the psychologists’ hypothesis is that “punishment at a young age fosters antisocial behavior”.

One way to strengthen an argument is to show that the premises on which the argument is based are indeed valid. Answer choice (D) does this by suggesting that the length of time a juvenile spends in prison is related to the likelihood of a juvenile delinquent becoming a diagnosed sociopath later in life.

If you chose (A): This choice provides statistics that suggest that among adults diagnosed as sociopaths, those who were juvenile delinquents far outnumber those who were not juvenile delinquents. This answer choice merely confirms what the psychologists already stated. It does not support the causal relationship that the author suggests exists between juvenile delinquency/punishment and antisocial behavior later in life.

If you chose (B), remember that the mere existence of a similar correlation does not strengthen the original correlation.

If you chose (C), you’re missing the fact that the scope of the conclusion here relates to the diagnosis of sociopathy later in life. Answer choice (C) merely suggests that there is a correlation between detention in juvenile hall as a youth and antisocial behavior later in life. Just because two factors are correlated does not mean that one is the cause of the other. Some other factor could have been responsible for the antisocial behavior exhibited later in life. Answer choice (D) is a better choice.

If you chose (E), remember to be suspicious of unrelated statistics on GMAT Critical Reasoning. Just because less than 50% of sociopaths reported they spent < 1 year in juvenile delinquent facilities does not mean that the two factors are related. This answer choice merely suggests a correlation between two factors.

(A) is the correct choice. Since we’re trying to “bolster,” or strengthen, the manager’s interpretation, it’s helpful to ask, “why?” Why would seeing pictures of food cause customers to order more food? The correct choice will reinforce the stated cause/effect relationship. We can strengthen the claim that visual stimulation causes an increase in desire for food by showing that there is an increase in desire for food in the presence of visual stimulation or by showing that there is a reduced desire for food in the absence of visual stimulation. Answer choice (A) strengthens the manager’s interpretation by suggesting that customers ordered less food when the specials menu was not displayed.

If you chose (B), this answer choice does not help relate the visual cue of the specials menu to ordering a super-size meal, and therefore would not bolster the manager’s conclusion.

If you chose (C), this choice is out of scope. The argument is only concerned with linking the visual images of food to the increased number of “super-sized” orders. The ordering of the specials themselves is tertiary.

If you chose (D), just because seeing the specials menu and super-sizing an order are correlated does not mean that there is a cause/effect relationship between the two variables. Customers may have ordered super-sized meals for any number of reasons other than seeing the specials menu prior to ordering. For example, if the super-sized orders came with a free drink, customers may prefer super-sized orders for that reason.

If you chose (E), there could be many reasons why Burger King next door had fewer “super-size” sales than the surveyed restaurant. This choice is far too vague. Look for a more specific choice to bolster the manager’s interpretation: that “seeing” pictures of food leads to ordering more food.

The correct response is (A). This is a resolve the argument question. The correct choice must help reconcile the apparent contradictory information by showing why, in fact, both facts can be true. Here we have an EXCEPT question as well, where all but one of the answer choices will be feasible. Begin by identifying the contrast. Don't be misled in this question by the use of the word “despite” in the first sentence: the contrast here is entirely contained within the second sentence. If output and price remained the same, how could it be that profits increased if demand did not grow? There are many possible explanations, four of which we will see in the answer choices. The only option that is NOT feasible is (A): if imports decreased, that still does not explain the rise in profits.