GMAT Critical Reasoning Questions Practice Test 2 for those who want to test their GMAT – Graduate Management Admission Test skills. GMAT is a standardized test used for the evaluation of students seeking admission in BBA, MBA, and post-graduate studies in Pakistan or abroad. Management studies provide you with the skills, preparation, and credentials you need to accelerate your career growth. MBA is the most popular degree program in Pakistan. LUMS and IBA MBA programs are the most applied in Pakistan.
Each quiz question in this course is made up of proven interesting researched concepts that test your awareness and grasp of the subject. Detailed feedback for the quiz answers is provided too.
- This Quiz is related to GMAT Critical Reasoning Questions Practice Test 2 in this series
- If you have good understanding about the subject, then you can attempt it
- There will be 10 Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) in this test
- Questions will be randomly changed every time you start this test
- You should practice more and more to get high marks
- You can retake this test as many time as you like
- If you feel that any Incorrect Answer to a Question, simply Comment us about the Question.
A new law gives ownership of patents—documents providing exclusive right to make and sell an invention—to universities, not the government, when those patents result from government-sponsored university research. Administrators at Logos University plan to sell any patents they acquire to corporations in order to fund programs to improve undergraduate teaching. Which of the following, if true, would cast most doubt on the viability of the college administrators’ plan described above?
First of all,a very interesting doubt! After a long time, I thought about a CR question for 15 minutes. I'll first discuss option A and then option D: Option A: (A) Profit-making corporations interested in developing products based on patents held by universities are likely to try to serve as exclusive sponsors of ongoing university research projects. What does it mean? It means that corporations are likely to do one thing (one thing = exclusive sponsor of ongoing research projects). Does it in any way mean that they will not do the other thing (other thing = fund programs to improve undergraduate teaching)? Rather, on the contrary, the universities may make it a condition for anyone becoming an exclusive sponsor to also fund undergraduate teaching. Isn't it? Option D: First of all, your doubt here is different from that of dav373. He said that option D indicates that logos university will not patents and hence, this option is irrelevant since we are talking about patents and not the absence of patents. On the other hand, you say that if logos university has a patent, then corporations will need to pay logos university to access the payment and therefore, this option does not weaken the argument. Am I correct in my understanding? Now, here I agree with dav373 that if the research is duplicate of the research already completed by corporations, then there is hardly a possibility of logos university getting patents. In such a case, since it does not have patents, it will not be able to fund programs to improve undergraduate training. So, now, we are less sure of their plan. Therefore, option D actually weakens the viability of the plan. Now, you can see that I disagree with dav373 that option D is irrelevant just because it means that logos university will not get patents. If I say that I plan to sell my upcoming book to pay off my tuition fees. Can't you weaken my plan by saying that no one will even publish that book? Thanks,
Studies have shown that a large percentage of car accidents are caused by aggressive driving. To help reduce the number of accidents and to promote traffic safety in general, insurance companies have begun to issue discounts to drivers who take defensive driving courses. Research shows that people who practice defensive driving are considerably less likely to get into a car accident. Therefore, the insurance company’s plan should help reduce the number of accidents. Assuming the statements above are true, which of the following can be inferred from them?
It looks like you are a GMAT Pill student. Let's go ahead and tackle this with Framework #8 Inference. In the process, you'll see the concept from Framework #4 Negation play a role as well. Framework #8 Inference So you immediately you identify this question as an INFERENCE question. That means, do not be confused and take an answer choice and try to make it support the conclusion that is mentioned in the last line of the passage. That would be WRONG. If you did that, you're finding an ASSUMPTION -- not an INFERENCE. So with inference questions, you take an answer choice -- and you ask why is that statement true? Is it true because... (then some detail in passage that might support THAT answer choice as being a valid conclusion --- as opposed to a valid assumption). Let's look at (C) C. Young males and other demographics known for disproportionately being involved in car accidents are less likely to practice defensive driving than other demographics. Why would that be a valid conclusion? How do we know that...."guys and those who get into car accidents are LESS likely to practice defensive driving? The reason is because... Anything from passage to help us out? Well the passage doesn't talk about "young males". But it does have something about the types of people that get into car accidents. Well, it talks about those who get into FEWER accidents -- hmm that must be the negated version since the argument was about those who got into MORE accidents. Let's elaborate. Now, negation is an important concept on GMAT CR. So immediately, you should think...can I use the negated example from the passage to support my claim? So what is in the passage? Can it be said to be the "negated" form that would actually help support the claim? Well, passage says those who DO practice are LESS likely to get into accidents. So let's rewrite that: Argument: Those in accidents a lot do not practice defensive driving Basis: DO Practice defensive driving => LESS likely in accidents We know with Framework #4 Negation -- one method of supporting the argument is by showing the negation of that argument to be true. In this case, that's exactly what we do. We take this basis (sourced from passage) and we negate it. Basis: DO Practice defensive driving => LESS likely in accidents Negated Basis: DO NOT practice defensive driving => MORE likely in accidents. OK, does his negation support the argument? Argument: Those in accidents A LOT do NOT practice defensive driving (answer choice C) Negated Basis: Those who DO NOT practice defensive driving => MORE likely in accidents. Clearly we see the negated basis is SUPPORTING the argument now. (C) says some group that gets into A LOT of accidents does not practice. In other words, these types of people do NOT practice and get into A LOT of accidents. This is exactly what our negated basis is helping us say. Thus we managed to take information in the passage ("practice defensive driving =>less likely in accidents") and use that to support our inferred statement (those who "DO NOT Practice defensive driving => MORE likely in accidents") by negating the basis found in the passage and observing how it SUPPORTS the claim made in answer choice (C).
One variety of partially biodegradable plastic beverage container is manufactured from small bits of plastic bound together by a degradable bonding agent such as cornstarch. Since only the bonding agent degrades, leaving the small bits of plastic, no less plastic refuse per container is produced when such containers are discarded than when comparable non biodegradable containers are discarded. Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument above?
(A)Both partially biodegradable and non-biodegradable plastic beverage containers can be crushed completely flat by refuse compactors [The argument is about plastic waste per container (Biodegradable (B) and non- biodegradable (NB)). Therefore this is completely irrelevant to the argument – Eliminate it] (B)The partially biodegradable plastic beverage container is made with more plastic than comparable non-biodegradable ones in order to compensate for the weakening effect of the bonding agents [weakens the argument that both B and N-B generates same waste per container - hold it]. (C)Many consumers are ecology-minded and prefer to buy a product sold in partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers rather than in non-biodegradable containers, even if the price is higher. [This argument is not about consumer buying habits – Eliminate it] (D)The manufacturing process for partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers results in less plastic than the manufacturing plastic beverage containers. [This argument is not about manufacturing process of Biodegradable OR non- biodegradable – Eliminate it] (E) Technological problems with recycling currently prevent the reuse as food or beverage containers of the plastic from either type of plastic beverage container. [ Technological usage or problems are definately out of the scope of the argument – Eliminate it] Answer: B
In an experiment, volunteers walked individually through a dark, abandoned theater. Half of the volunteers had been told that the theater was haunted and the other half that it was under renovation. The first half reported significantly more unusual experiences than the second did. The researchers concluded that reports of encounters with ghosts and other supernatural entities generally result from prior expectations of such experiences. Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the researchers’ reasoning?
The important part of the conclusion is reports of ... generally result from prior expectations of such experiences. A. None of the volunteers in the second half believed that the unusual experiences they reported were supernatural. Irrelevant, this does not support conclusion as the second half were not expecting the theater to be haunted B. All of the volunteers in the first half believed that the researchers’ statement that the theater was haunted was a lie. Possible candidate, assumption is that first group would assume that it was actually haunted C. Before being told about the theater, the volunteers within each group varied considerably in their prior beliefs about supernatural experiences. Plausible but not relevant to conclusion D. Each unusual experience reported by the volunteers had a cause that did not involve the supernatural. Irrelevant E. The researchers did not believe that the theater was haunted. Irrelevant This leaves only B as the answer
Most of the year, the hermit thrush, a North American songbird, eats a diet consisting mainly of insects, but in autumn, as the thrushes migrate to their Central and South American wintering grounds, they feed almost exclusively on wild berries. Wild berries, however, are not as rich in calories as insects, yet thrushes need to consume plenty of calories in order to complete their migration. One possible explanation is that berries contain other nutrients that thrushes need for migration and that insects lack. Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the explanation given for the thrush’s diet during migration?
Premise - Hermits feed on insects most of the times but during migration they feed on wild berries though wild berries are not as rich in calories as insects are and Hermits require plenty of calories during migration. Conclusion - Berries contain other nutrients that Hermits need for migration and that insects lack. If we want to weaken the conclusion we should look for a choice which provides an alternate reason as to why the Hermits prefer eating berries during Migration. There could be various reasons one can think of - It is possible that no insects are available that the Hermits can eat during migration. - Or some other reason. A. Hermit thrushes, if undernourished, are unable to complete their autumn migration before the onset of winter. - There is not mention of undernourishment in either the premise or the conclusion. This statement does not affect the conclusion in any way. B. Insect species contain certain nutrients that are not found in Wild berries. - This statement too does not affect the conclusion. Even if Insect species contain certain nutrients that are not found in berries , this choice does not provide any reason as to why the hermits prefer berries to insects during migration. C. For songbirds, catching insects requires the expenditure of significantly more calories than eating wild berries does. - This choice provides an alternate reason to the fact that hermits prefer berries. If catching insects requires significantly more calories than catching wild berries does then the hermits by choice have berries because they would want to conserve energy during their migration. D. Along the hermit thrushes’ migration routes, insects are abundant throughout the migration season. - Does not provide any reason as to why hermits prefer berries. E. There are some species of wild berries that hermit thrushes generally do not eat, even though these berry species are exceptionally rich in calories. - Does not affect the conclusion. Even if there are some species that are rich and hermits do not eat them this choice does not provide any alternate cause. =================================================================== Prethink : What's the reason that Thrushs consume only Wild Berries not Insects during migration ? Check the answers - A. Hermit thrushes, [color=#ff0000]if undernourished, are unable to complete their autumn migration before the onset of winter. Out of scope , this options talks about undernourishment. B. Insect species contain certain nutrients that are not found in Wild berries. Out of scope , this options talks about other nutrients which is not under discussion in the present context. C. For songbirds, catching insects requires the expenditure of significantly more calories than eating wild berries does. Calorie Used : Catching Insects > Eating wild berries ; for same calorific intake... Say 10 KCAL of Energy is consumed ... Catching Insects = 4KCAL Eating wild berries = 3 KCAL Energy Requirement for flight = 5KCAL Keeping in mind that the bird requires energy for flight it is definitely beneficial for the bird to use it economically and consume high calorie food/nutrients... D. Along the hermit thrushes’ migration routes, insects are abundant throughout the migration season. So, why do the birds not catch insects ? Can not weaken the conclusion. E. There are some species of wild berries that hermit thrushes generally do not eat, even though these berry species are exceptionally rich in calories. Completely out of scope and irrelevant under present context.. Hence IMHO definitely with (C) _________________ Thanks and Regards
Music stores often recommend cheap guitars to customers who are just starting to play. Like with any new activity, beginners are unsure about whether they will enjoy the experience of playing guitar enough to continue it consistently for a long period of time. For this reason, beginners consider investing in an expensive guitar unnecessary. Clearly, cheap guitars are more suitable for beginners' needs. Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the argument's conclusion?
To solve this Conclusion Weakening question, first break down the argument. The first three sentences contain premises which provide givens; the last sentence begins with the conclusion word clearly so we can identify it as the argument's conclusion: Premise A: music stores recommend cheap guitars to beginners + Premise B: beginning guitarists don't know how long they will keep up the hobby + Premise C: beginners believe expensive guitars are unsuitable for them = Conclusion: cheap guitars are suitable for beginners' needs Possible assumption: the disadvantages of cheap guitars do not affect beginners Weakening Data: ? You are required to find data that weakens the conclusion that cheap guitars are suitable for beginners' needs. The correct answer could be one that exposes the argument's assumption. This answer choice neither weakens nor strengthens the conclusion as the fact professional guitarists use expensive guitars does not indicate anything about the suitability of cheap guitars to beginners' needs. B. Beginning guitarists should practice scales in order to improve their finger control and understanding of the guitar's tonality. Incorrect. While this answer choice establishes a need of beginning guitarists, it does not link it with the quality or price of the guitar they are using. Therefore, it neither weakens nor strengthens the conclusion. C. By starting with a cheap guitar, beginners may gradually discover their preferences before buying a more specialized instrument. Incorrect. This answer choice strengthens the conclusion by providing another reason why cheap guitars are suitable for beginners. However, you are required to weaken the conclusion. D. Cheap guitars offer a low level of playing satisfaction that can deter beginners from continuing to learn. This answer choice attacks the assumption that there is no disadvantage to playing a cheap guitar that can be experienced by a beginner. By stating that a cheap guitar can deter beginners from continuing to learn it undermines the conclusion that they are suitable for them. E. Because they are so cheap to produce, music stores earn almost 5% more selling cheap guitars than expensive ones. Incorrect. To solve this Conclusion Weakening question, first break down the argument. The first three sentences contain premises which provide givens; the last sentence begins with the conclusion word clearly so we can identify it as the argument's conclusion: Premise A: music stores recommend cheap guitars to beginners + Premise B: beginning guitarists don't know how long they will keep up the hobby + Premise C: beginners believe expensive guitars are unsuitable for them = Conclusion: cheap guitars are suitable for beginners' needs Possible assumption: the disadvantages of cheap guitars do not affect beginners
Last year Comfort Airlines had twice as many delayed flights as the year before, but the number of complaints from passengers about delayed flights went up three times. It is unlikely that this disproportionate increase in complaints was rooted in an increase in overall dissatisfaction with the service Comfort Airlines provides, since the airline made a special effort to improve other aspects of its service last year. Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the disproportionate increase in customer complaints?
Passage analysis Last year Comfort Airlines had twice as many delayed flights as the year before, Last year, Comfort Airlines had many delayed flights Last year, the number of flights delayed was double the number of flights delayed the year before that. but the number of complaints from passengers about delayed flights went up three times. Passengers complained about these delayed flights. Last year the number of complaints were three times the number in the year before last. We can infer that though the number of flights delayed doubled last year, the number of complaints about delayed flights tripled disproportionately. It is unlikely that this disproportionate increase in complaints was rooted in an increase in overall dissatisfaction with the service Comfort Airlines provides, since the airline made a special effort to improve other aspects of its service last year. This disproportionate increase in complaints was not because of an increase in overall dissatisfaction with the service of Comfort Airlines because Comfort Airlines put in special effort to improve the other areas of its service last year. Conclusion Overall dissatisfaction with the service provided by Comfort Airlines is unlikely to be the reason behind the disproportionate increase in complaints by the passengers. Pre-thinking Strengthen Framework Now per our understanding of the passage, let’s first write down the strengthen framework: What new information will help us believe more in the conclusion Overall dissatisfaction with the service provided by Comfort Airlines is unlikely to be the reason behind the disproportionate increase in complaints by the passengers. Given that Last year, the number of delayed fights of CA was double the number of delayed flights the year before. But the number of complaints last year was three time the number of complaints the year before. CA made special improvements to the other aspects of its service last year. Thought process If the number of flights delayed doubled, then one would expect the complaints also to more or less double. In this case, the assumption made would be that the number of total passengers of CA had not been higher last year than the year before (that is the number of passengers had either remained the same or reduced somewhat). But the number of complaints has unexpectedly risen by three times. This in spite of the fact that CA made specially improved the other aspects of its service(other than the delay aspect). So, CA is confident that the unexpected increase in the number of complaints is not because of The other aspects of the service (they have taken care of that last year itself) The usual number of delays (had it been because of the number of delays, then the number of complaints was expected to go up accordingly with the increase in the number of flights delayed - twice - and not go up three times). Then what has led to the disproportionate increase in complaints? Strengthener Clearly, there is something else that the passengers are complaining about. Any statement/evidence indicating a factor/reason that could have caused the disproportionate increase will strengthen the airline’ conclusion that the complaints are not because of overall dissatisfaction with their services. Answer Choices Option A The passage mentions “the numbers of delayed flights” quite explicitly. Thus the total number of flights does not matter at all to the discussion. Thus, this is not the correct choice. Option B The reason why the flights had been delayed does not matter. We need to find the reason behind the disproportionately increased number of complaints. Therefore, this is irrelevant to the discussion. Thus, this is not the correct answer choice. Option C Why the improvements were made is not important as long as they were made and therefore the disproportionate increase in complaints could not have been related to the service aspect of the airlines. This option does not give any alternative reason behind the increased number of complaints. Thus, this is not the correct choice. Option D This option introduces a factor about the delays that has not been considered in the argument. The argument only looks at the number of delays and the number of complaints. What about the kind of delay itself? This option says the delays were lengthier on average and this could have led more than the expected number of passengers to complain about them. This is in line with pre-thinking. Thus, this is the correct answer choice. Option E The option implies that the average number of passengers per flight was either the same or less than the year before last. This further confuses us. It still does not give the reason why the number of complaints increased threefold if the average number of passengers did not increase. Thus, this is not the correct answer choice.
In Manila, Phillipines, one of the largest shopping malls in the world, the recently-opened SM Mall of Asia, is threatening the viability of other "super-malls" in Manila, but its appearance has had a positive effect on many small businesses in the area. The SM Mall o f Asia has few of the same attractions as other Manila super-malls, but it has become of the largest tourist destinations in the Phillipines. Which of the following contributes most to an explanation of the difference between the SM Mall of Asia's effect on other super-malls and small businesses?
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION D As with most explanation questions, there is something of a paradox in the passage. The SM Mall of Asia has a negative effect on other super-malls, but a positive effect on small businesses. There must be some difference in the effect it has on these two types of businesses, so look for that sort of thing in the answer choices. There isn't any distinction in (A): it doesn't tell us what sort of shopping opportunities tourists seek out. (B) would seem to contradict the passage: if locations are chosen to avoid competition, there is less of a reason why the SM Mall of Asia would threaten the viability of other super-malls. (C) tells us something specific about the SM Mall of Asia, but not anything that tells us about other malls or small businesses. Choice (D) gives us a reason why all businesses might benefit - an increased number of weekend tourists' and a reason why other super-malls might not - that the tourists only visit one super-mall. This would explain the difference. (E) gives us a difference between the SM Mall of Asia and other super-malls, but no hint on the effect the mall might have on small businesses.Choice (D) is correct.
Archaeologist: Researchers excavating a burial site in Cyprus found a feline skeleton lying near a human skeleton. Both skeletons were in the same sediment at the same depth and equally well-preserved, suggesting that the feline and human were buried together about 9,500 years ago. This shows that felines were domesticated around the time farming began, when they would have been useful in protecting stores of grain from mice. Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the archaeologist’s argument?
Simplified Explanation Type: Weaken Boil It Down: Man & cat likely buried at same time -> Felines domesticated then Missing Information: This man and cat were actually buried together; Buried together means domestication Goal: Find an option that shows buried together does NOT mean domestication Ⓐ The absence of evidence of grain wouldn’t weaken the argument. For all we know, archaeologists just haven’t found the grain yet, but could. Ⓑ 180. This option, if anything, would serve to reinforce the notion of early domestication of felines when farming began in that this discovery would then be key to the that theory. Ⓒ What’s to say that the lack of felines hunting mice proves that mice didn’t? That just might be (and probably was) a VERY odd choice of painting subject. Ⓓ Smack down! This option shows that we can’t take being buried side by side as proof of domestication, thus shutting down the presumption that being buried side by side is proof of domestication. Ⓔ This option reinforces the need for felines to combat mice, serving the opposite side of the argument. Boot it.
Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration point to the 40 incidents involving unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents that were reported just last year at two existing incinerators commissioned to destroy a quantity of chemical waste material. Since designs for proposed new incinerators include no additional means of preventing such releases, leaks will only become more prevalent if use of incineration increases. Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
Answer Choice Analysis Option A This option states that it was the lack of proper training of the staff handling the chemical waste that led to the leaks. And this is something that is not related to the design of the incinerators. So, likely the design of the proposed incinerators will not lead to frequent leaks in the future. This is in line with our pre-thinking. Thus, this is the correct answer choice. Option B The other methods are not “safer” could mean two things. They could be “as safe as” or “less safe than” As safe as- The other means could be as safe as the incinerators. In that case given the leaks in the two incinerators, the other methods could be used to dispose of the material. This would in a way support the conclusion which discourages the use of incinerators. But the other meaning is “less safe than”. This means the other methods are less safe than the incinerators. Therefore, the use of incinerators should be continued. This weakens the conclusion. But an option like this that has a dual impact cannot be used either to strengthen or to weaken an argument. Thus, this is not the correct choice. Option C This option rules out the need for incinerators but not because they are unsafe. Hence, this option is mostly irrelevant to the discussion. Option D This would be more of a support for the opponents to the building of new incinerators. If the history of incinerators is full of frequent reports of sudden leaks, then all the more reason not to extend the use. Thus, this is not the correct choice. Option E