GMAT Critical Reasoning Questions Practice Test 1

D is correct. Here's why:(A) serious scientific research is not a solitary activity, but relies on active cooperation among a group of colleagues --> this isn't the author's argument; he never alludes to cooperation being necessary to be deemed a "true colleague"(B) research scientists tend not to regard as colleagues those scientists whose renown they envy --> irrelevant(C) a scientist can become a famous popularizer without having completed any important research --> true, but this doesn't mean that that individual is not motivated(D) research scientists believe that those who are well known as popularizers of science are not motivated to do important new research --> BINGO!; if you aren't motivated to do new research, then you aren't a "true colleague"(E) no important new research can be accessible to or accurately assessed by those who are not themselves scientists --> irrelevant

This is a hard question. I would say that Vercules gave an excellent explanation above.Fact = new SpendLess discount department store (i.e. Walmart) has openedFact = as a result, the discount stores in Goreville’s central shopping district are expected to close within five yearsConclusion ---- "those locations will not stay vacant for long"This is an argument by analogySpendLess: downtown discount stores :: Colson’s: downtown nondiscount storesThe author essentially says --- since the Colson's situation is like the SpendLess situation, we will see the same result --- storefronts won't stay empty for long. We are asked to weaken this argument.The way to weaken an argument by analogy is to show that it's not a good analogy, i.e. that there's some crucial difference that separates the two situations.Let's think about these situations more carefully:SITUATION #1 (factual)(a) at the start, lots of nondiscount stores downtown(b) then Colson's opens, competes with them(c) nondiscount stores downtown start to close(d) BUT, other stores take their placeSITUATION #2 (part factual, part predicted)(a) at the start, lots of discount stores downtown (fact)(b) then SpendLess opens, competes with them (fact)(c) discount stores downtown start to close (confident expectation)(d) BUT, other store will take their place (author's conclusion)The problem lies in step (d) --- what other stores took over the empty storefront?IF, in Scenario #1, some nondiscount stores that couldn't compete with Colson's moved out, but other nondiscount stores were able to figure out how to compete with Colson's and moved in, more stores of the same niche, then that would strengthen the argument by analogy, that other discount stores will figure out how to compete with SpendLess in its niche and successfully take the place of the discount stores that close.BUT IF, in Scenario #1, after the nondiscount store that couldn't compete with Colson's moved out, discount stores moved into those spaces --- well, discount store are a different niche, not necessarily direct competitors of something like Colson's. Furthermore, in economically challenging times, discounts stores will always have an edge over non-discount stores. This explains why new stores, stores of a difference niche, could occupy those empty store fronts in Scenario #1. BUT, the situation now looks very different in scenario #2 --- if the discount stores are being forced out of business by SpendLess, what on earth is going to take their place? That is, if discount stores have an advantage vis-a-vis nondiscount stores, what kind of stores have a similar advantage vis-a-vis discount stores? There really isn't anything like that. Therefore, the analogy is not good, and contrary to the author of the argument, we can't expect the storefronts that will become vacant downtown to fill anytime soon.Choice (B) goes to the heart of this --- it let's us know that the stores that replaced Colson's unsuccessful competitors were not more non-discount stores, stores in that same category, but discount store --- a switch to a more advantageous category. Economically, that's a one-trick-pony --- you can't "one up" the category of stores again.The other answers are tempting but not correct. For example, (E) tries to call into question the evidence --- never a successful strategy. We know Colson's competitors closed, regardless of whether they sold items not available at Colsons. That's fact. According to the argument, we expect SpendLess's discount story competitors also to close --- again, regardless of what unique discount trinkets they sell. Apparently, this is an irrelevant point --- regardless of what they sell, these smaller competitor stores will close. The evidence presented in the argument is true --- you never gain ground on GMAT CR "weaken" questions by calling the evidence into question.Finally, one thing that makes this argument much easier to interpret is knowing the real-world reference. The chain Walmart (called here "SpendLess") has decimated downtown shopping districts by the thousand across America. This argument is very much about this all-too-common scenario. GMAT CR arguments often draw on real world situations, especially in the business world ----- if you are planning to take the GMAT and get an MBA, you absolutely have to be up-to-date with the economic news. This will give you an enormous advantage in the GMAT CR.This post .....http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/reading-fo ... economist/... talks about how reading The Economist can help you with GMAT RC, but it can also help with CR. In fact, the writing quality is very high, so it provides an excellent example of grammar for the GMAT SC as well!Does all this make sense?

A. Do the robots used by Boksco require maintenance for them to achieve optimum output levels? If yes -Maintenance cost will add, increasing the operating cost If no- Operating cost is not likely to increase because of this activity KeepB. Do the workers at Foldaco undergo specialized training before they are allowed to perform their tasks? Knowing this for Foldaco is irrelevant; However, same question for Boksco could have been significantC. Are retail prices for products manufactured by Boksco much higher than those manufactured by Foldaco? We are interested in costs not price or profitsD. How long ago did Boksco complete the process of integrating the robots into its manufacturing system? IrrelevantE. Is the sum of the wages of the workers at Boksco higher or lower than that of the workers at Foldaco? It is same as asking whether salaries are same or not - Not same could be more or even lass- IrrelevantA is the answer IMO

Okay, so we need to weaken the theory that says Humans killed Neanderthals.A. A recent study of Shanidar 3, one of the Neanderthals campsite discovered, concluded that the Neanderthals likely died of a rib wound that could have been created by the kind of projectile weapons used by modern humans living at the time. --> StrengthenerB. Scientists have recently discovered some bones and teeth belonging to modern humans that looked as though they had been killed by Neanderthals. --> StrengthenerC. Recently excavated fossils provide sustainable evidence that the Neanderthals died out because they couldn’t reproduce fast enough to keep up with modern humans.D. Some Scientists argue that the Neanderthals may have had a harder time during childbirth due to the large head of Neanderthal babies. --> As discussed aboveE. Several volcanoes in Eurasia have erupted in quick succession about 40,000 years ago before modern humans arrived in Europe. --> Irrelevant

Lets check the options -(A) Many eclectic vehicles that are used for commercial purposes are not needed for extended trips.Out of scope(B) Because a majority of commuters drive at least 100 miles a week, the cost to the producer of making good the offer would add considerably to the already high price of electric vehicles.Weakens the plan of the Producer , if cost escalates sale will be less.(C) The relatively long time it takes to recharge the battery of an electric vehicle can easily be fitted into the regular patterns of car use characteristic of commuters.Out of scope.(D) Although eclectic vehicles are essentially emission-free in actual use, generating the electricity necessary for charging an electric vehicle's battery can burden the environment.Out of scope.(E) Some family vehicles are used primarily not for commuting but for making short local trips, such as to do errands.Out of scope.Hence IMHO (E) as well ...

Premises:For over two centuries, no one had been able to make D blades - blades with a specific surface pattern.A sword maker may just have rediscovered how to make D blades now.He used iron with trace impurities (that precisely matched those present in the iron used in historic D blades) and an intricate process.Hypothesis: Trace impurities in the iron are essential for the production of Damascus bladesWe want to strengthen it. We need to show that D Blades are always made with iron with impurities. You cannot make a D Blade without the trace impurities.A) There are surface features of every Damascus blade-including the blades produced by the contemporary sword maker-that are unique to that blade.This says that every D blade is unique. It doesn't say that trace impurities are essential.B) The iron with which the contemporary sword maker made Damascus blades came from a source of iron that was unknown two centuries ago.The iron source used today was unknown to D Blade makers. This information is apparent from the argument too. The contemporary sword maker had to add trace impurities to make the iron same as that used in making D blades. It doesn't tell us that the impurities are essential and that the sword maker could not have made the D-Blade without adding the impurities.C) Almost all the tools used by the contemporary sword maker were updated versions of tools that were used by sword makers over two centuries ago.The contemporary sword maker used updated tools. No reference to what kind of iron was used.D) Production of Damascus blades by sword makers of the past ceased abruptly after those sword makers' original source of iron became exhausted.This tells you that when the original source of iron was exhausted, production of D-blades stopped. This means that the sword makers could not make D-Blades with some other source of iron. So then, the iron from the original source was special and was required to make the D-blades. This gives more credibility to the theory that the trace impurities found in that iron were essential to making D-blades. Hence this option is correct.E) Although Damascus blades were renowned for maintaining a sharp edge, the blade made by the contemporary sword maker suggests that they may have maintained their edge less well than blades made using what is now the standard process for making blades.Comparison of D blade edge with edges of modern blades is out of scope.Answer (D)

Option C tells that it is unlikely that fired employees will get job somewhere else; hence, they would certainly need assistance.C is the answer

Answer Choice AnalysisOption AThis option just gives us the number of vehicles and the reason why they are a part of the traffic in central business district. This option does nothing to show that the plan of the officials will be a success or a failure.Thus, this is not the correct answer choice.Option BThis is about future expectation which may or may not materialize. For instance, in the next five years new flyovers might come up which might reduce traffic congestion. Hence, future speculation does not tell us that the plan will be a success in the present.Thus, this is not the correct answer choice.Option CThis option says that in other busy areas in cities, congestion pricing has caused drivers to give up individual driving and they are sharing cars.This means that they individually do not have to pay the amount designated by the officials. This is the way that they have found around the congestion pricing system. And because of this the number of cars/vehicles will be reduced thus leading to the success of the congestion pricing plan. This option is in line with our pre-thinking strengthener3.Thus, this is the correct answer choice.Option DThis is not the aim of the plan and even if this happens it does not support the conclusion that the officials’ plan will help reduce traffic congestion. This is completely irrelevantThus, this is not the correct answer choice.Option EThe number of people who occupy a single vehicle does not give us an estimate of the vastness of the number of vehicles. Even if it did that, it does not tell us that congestion pricing will be successful in reducing traffic congestion.Thus, this is not the correct choice.

Type: AssumptionBoil It Down: Me: easy = fair, You: easy = unfair -> People apply weaker morals to selfMissing Information: Were there other factors?Goal: Find the option that contains missing information required for this argument to workNote: For efficiency on test day, we only need to apply The Opposite Test in Assumption Questions (to prove the option is required for the logic to work) on options that are in contention.A) Absolutely! This argument REQUIRES the notion that at least some of the people who said they acted fairly in choosing the easy task, would have said it was unfair for other people to choose the easy task (and leave them with the harder task). Applying The Opposite Test (to prove that this option is required): No one who said they had acted fairly in choosing the easy task would have said that it was unfair for someone else to do so. The argument would be crushed, and thus this option is required.B) The computer option is a side show not relevant to the argument at all. The part about the computer could have been left out entirely and the argument would remain exactly the same. We know why they added the computer dynamic to the question though: to be able to write a tempting distractor option like this.C) Finding the hard task unfair is Out of Focus of the issue of whether choosing the easy task for yourself if fair. Therefore, this option is actually not something required for the argument to hold.D) Accuracy of judgement is a non-factor since people believe they're accurate in their own judgments. Let's use the opposite test to prove that this option is not required: On average, the volunteers to whom the scenario was described were NOT more accurate in their moral judgments than the other volunteers were. As you can see, when we take the opposite, the argument can still stand. Gone.E) The argument doesn't require volunteers to believe that they made the ONLY fair choice. The people who chose the easy task for themselves could have also considered assigning the task to the computer fair as well.Bigger GMAT Perspective: On questions that seem more complex, it can be worth it to invest an extra 10-30 seconds to REALLY have a firm command of the prompt. You'll not only be able to select the right option but you'll also be able to make that time back by more swiftly moving through the options. A question like this also proves that skimming is the kiss of death. NEVER skim anything on the GMAT.