Franklin's Super-Fly Critical Reasoning Question Thread : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) - Page 3
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 20 Jan 2017, 19:39

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Franklin's Super-Fly Critical Reasoning Question Thread

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 20 Jul 2009
Posts: 16
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

11 Sep 2009, 07:06
So what is the Shell Game? Can you explain it?
Senior Manager
Affiliations: ACA, CPA
Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Posts: 441
Location: Vagabond
Schools: BC
WE 1: Big4, Audit
WE 2: Banking
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 86 [0], given: 41

Show Tags

11 Sep 2009, 07:15
Shell Game answers are similar to the conclusion in wording but may touch on a different component or somewhat out of scope.

castrocmc wrote:
So what is the Shell Game? Can you explain it?

_________________

If you have made mistakes, there is always another chance for you. You may have a fresh start any moment you choose, for this thing we call "failure" is not the falling down, but the staying down.

Intern
Joined: 20 Jul 2009
Posts: 16
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

11 Sep 2009, 08:15
Wow that is tricky bc it is an easy trap. Any suggestions on howto practice those types?
Current Student
Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 187
Location: Ithaca, New York
Schools: Cornell University - The Johnson School
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 47 [1] , given: 62

Show Tags

12 Sep 2009, 04:05
1
KUDOS
Quote:
While 65% of the eligible voters who were recently polled favor Perkins over Samuels in the coming election, the results of that poll are dubious because it was not based on a representative sample. Given that Perkins predominately advocates the interests of the upper-middle class and that the survey was conducted at high-priced shopping malls, it is quite probably that Perkin's supporters were overrepresented.

Which one of the following statements most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument?

A) The poll was intentionally designed to favor Perkins over Samuels.

B) Samuel's supporters believe that they were probably not adequately represented in the poll.

C) The poll's results probably do not accurately represent the opinions of the voters in the coming election.

D) Samuels is quite likely to have a good chance of winning the coming election.

E) Those who designed the poll should have considered more carefully where to conduct the survey.
Senior Manager
Affiliations: ACA, CPA
Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Posts: 441
Location: Vagabond
Schools: BC
WE 1: Big4, Audit
WE 2: Banking
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 86 [0], given: 41

Show Tags

12 Sep 2009, 04:17
While 65% of the eligible voters who were recently polled favor Perkins over Samuels in the coming election, the results of that poll are dubious because it was not based on a representative sample. Given that Perkins predominately advocates the interests of the upper-middle class and that the survey was conducted at high-priced shopping malls, it is quite probably that Perkin's supporters were overrepresented.

Premise1 - 65% of voters favored Perkins over Samuels
Premise2 - Poll result are dubious because the poll was not based on a representative sample
Premise3 - Polls were conducted at high-priced shopping malls where Perkin's supporters were overrepresented.

Logic - This relates to why/how the sample is skewed with regards to Perkins. So, i looked for answers which involved some kind of intent.

Which one of the following statements most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument?

A) The poll was intentionally designed to favor Perkins over Samuels. - Strong Contender

B) Samuel's supporters believe that they were probably not adequately represented in the poll. - Irrelevant

C) The poll's results probably do not accurately represent the opinions of the voters in the coming election. - Coming election? Out of scope

D) Samuels is quite likely to have a good chance of winning the coming election. Coming election? Out of scope

E) Those who designed the poll should have considered more carefully where to conduct the survey. Weak Contender

Will go with A
_________________

If you have made mistakes, there is always another chance for you. You may have a fresh start any moment you choose, for this thing we call "failure" is not the falling down, but the staying down.

Current Student
Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 187
Location: Ithaca, New York
Schools: Cornell University - The Johnson School
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 62

Show Tags

13 Sep 2009, 12:56
Franklin wrote:
Quote:
While 65% of the eligible voters who were recently polled favor Perkins over Samuels in the coming election, the results of that poll are dubious because it was not based on a representative sample. Given that Perkins predominately advocates the interests of the upper-middle class and that the survey was conducted at high-priced shopping malls, it is quite probably that Perkin's supporters were overrepresented.

Which one of the following statements most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument?

A) The poll was intentionally designed to favor Perkins over Samuels.

B) Samuel's supporters believe that they were probably not adequately represented in the poll.

C) The poll's results probably do not accurately represent the opinions of the voters in the coming election.

D) Samuels is quite likely to have a good chance of winning the coming election.

E) Those who designed the poll should have considered more carefully where to conduct the survey.

My summary of the stimulus: Recently polled voters favor Perkins over Samuels in the coming election but those results aren't representative of the electorate because the poll was conducted in a demographic area that would favor Perkins.

My conclusion: Therefore, the poll doesn't represent the views of all voters in the coming election.

For the answer choice I don't want an answer that is too strong. The answer/conclusion will be based on the premises. Any outside info added will eliminate the answer choice (this is a rule I adhere to in these type of problems)

A) This may or may not be true but there is no information about whether it was intentionally designed to favor Perkins.

B) Maybe ... but the stimulus doesn't say this. Without information about what Samuels' supporters believe I cannot infer this answer choice.

C) This is the right answer. It isn't too strong but basically summarizes the premises.

D) The stimulus doesn't say anything about Samuels chances.

E) Irrelevant.
Current Student
Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 187
Location: Ithaca, New York
Schools: Cornell University - The Johnson School
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 62

Show Tags

13 Sep 2009, 13:08
Quote:
One way kidney stones can form is when urine is produced in the kidneys is overly concentrated with calcium or oxalate. Reducing dietary calcium has been thought, therefore, to decrease the likelihood that calcium will concentrate and form additional stones. Oddly enough, for many people the chances of recurrence are decreased by increasing calcium intake.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy described above?

A) Laboratory studies on animals with kidney stones reveal that they rarely get additional stones once calcium supplements are added to the diet.

B) Increasing dietary oxalate while reducing dietary calcium does not reduce the chances of kidney stone recurrence.

C) Kidney stone development is sometimes the result of an inherited disorder that can result in excessive production of calcium and oxalate.

D) Increasing calcium intake increases the amount of calcium eliminated through the intestines, which decreases the amount to be filtered by the kidneys.

E) Some kidney stones are composed of uric acid rather than a combination of calcium and oxalate.
Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2009
Posts: 230
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 99 [0], given: 13

Show Tags

13 Sep 2009, 16:31
IMO D.

If calcium amount filtered through kidneys decreases, then chances of stone formation also decreases.
Senior Manager
Affiliations: ACA, CPA
Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Posts: 441
Location: Vagabond
Schools: BC
WE 1: Big4, Audit
WE 2: Banking
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 86 [0], given: 41

Show Tags

13 Sep 2009, 18:30
Premise 1 - One way kidney stones can form is when urine in the kidneys is overly concentrated with calcium or oxalate.
Premise 2 - Reducing dietary calcium leads to decrease the likelihood that calcium will concentrate and form additional stones.
Paradox - For many people the chances of recurrence are decreased by increasing calcium intake.

Logic - we are trying to find an alternate cause which might lead to the paradox. So, maybe some external factor is mitigating the effect of increased calcium intake.

A) Laboratory studies on animals with kidney stones reveal that they rarely get additional stones once calcium supplements are added to the diet. Out of scope

B) Increasing dietary oxalate while reducing dietary calcium does not reduce the chances of kidney stone recurrence. - Maybe, but the paradox does not talk about Increasing dietary oxalate. - Out of scope

C) Kidney stone development is sometimes the result of an inherited disorder that can result in excessive production of calcium and oxalate. - Talks about causes of kidney stone -Out of scope

D) Increasing calcium intake increases the amount of calcium eliminated through the intestines, which decreases the amount to be filtered by the kidneys. - Looks ok, the calcium reaching the kidneys is already in decreased amounts, hence the chances of kidney stone development are low.

E) Some kidney stones are composed of uric acid rather than a combination of calcium and oxalate. - out of scope

Will go with D
_________________

If you have made mistakes, there is always another chance for you. You may have a fresh start any moment you choose, for this thing we call "failure" is not the falling down, but the staying down.

Senior Manager
Affiliations: ACA, CPA
Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Posts: 441
Location: Vagabond
Schools: BC
WE 1: Big4, Audit
WE 2: Banking
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 86 [0], given: 41

Show Tags

13 Sep 2009, 18:32
Franklin, isn't the coming election assuming too much?

Franklin wrote:
Franklin wrote:
Quote:
While 65% of the eligible voters who were recently polled favor Perkins over Samuels in the coming election, the results of that poll are dubious because it was not based on a representative sample. Given that Perkins predominately advocates the interests of the upper-middle class and that the survey was conducted at high-priced shopping malls, it is quite probably that Perkin's supporters were overrepresented.

Which one of the following statements most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument?

A) The poll was intentionally designed to favor Perkins over Samuels.

B) Samuel's supporters believe that they were probably not adequately represented in the poll.

C) The poll's results probably do not accurately represent the opinions of the voters in the coming election.

D) Samuels is quite likely to have a good chance of winning the coming election.

E) Those who designed the poll should have considered more carefully where to conduct the survey.

My summary of the stimulus: Recently polled voters favor Perkins over Samuels in the coming election but those results aren't representative of the electorate because the poll was conducted in a demographic area that would favor Perkins.

My conclusion: Therefore, the poll doesn't represent the views of all voters in the coming election.

For the answer choice I don't want an answer that is too strong. The answer/conclusion will be based on the premises. Any outside info added will eliminate the answer choice (this is a rule I adhere to in these type of problems)

A) This may or may not be true but there is no information about whether it was intentionally designed to favor Perkins.

B) Maybe ... but the stimulus doesn't say this. Without information about what Samuels' supporters believe I cannot infer this answer choice.

C) This is the right answer. It isn't too strong but basically summarizes the premises.

D) The stimulus doesn't say anything about Samuels chances.

E) Irrelevant.

_________________

If you have made mistakes, there is always another chance for you. You may have a fresh start any moment you choose, for this thing we call "failure" is not the falling down, but the staying down.

Current Student
Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 187
Location: Ithaca, New York
Schools: Cornell University - The Johnson School
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 62

Show Tags

13 Sep 2009, 18:46
Franklin, isn't the coming election assuming too much?

Hey sniper, what do you mean "coming election" is assuming too much? It's in the stimulus. I'm not sure I understand your question. Please clarify.
Senior Manager
Affiliations: ACA, CPA
Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Posts: 441
Location: Vagabond
Schools: BC
WE 1: Big4, Audit
WE 2: Banking
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 86 [1] , given: 41

Show Tags

13 Sep 2009, 18:57
1
KUDOS

In trying to the question under 2 mins...i misread it. Lesson learnt.

Franklin wrote:
Franklin, isn't the coming election assuming too much?

Hey sniper, what do you mean "coming election" is assuming too much? It's in the stimulus. I'm not sure I understand your question. Please clarify.

_________________

If you have made mistakes, there is always another chance for you. You may have a fresh start any moment you choose, for this thing we call "failure" is not the falling down, but the staying down.

Manager
Joined: 28 Jul 2009
Posts: 127
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 25 [1] , given: 12

Show Tags

14 Sep 2009, 06:17
1
KUDOS
Gr8 thread guys .. keep up the good work ..

I got most of them right but took on an average of 150 secs/question .. have to improve on that ..

I'll also start sharing my thought procedure as you guyz do ..
Intern
Joined: 20 Aug 2009
Posts: 42
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 5

Show Tags

14 Sep 2009, 11:50
IMO E
Current Student
Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 187
Location: Ithaca, New York
Schools: Cornell University - The Johnson School
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 62

Show Tags

15 Sep 2009, 08:07
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Franklin wrote:
Quote:
One way kidney stones can form is when urine is produced in the kidneys is overly concentrated with calcium or oxalate. Reducing dietary calcium has been thought, therefore, to decrease the likelihood that calcium will concentrate and form additional stones. Oddly enough, for many people the chances of recurrence are decreased by increasing calcium intake.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy described above?

A) Laboratory studies on animals with kidney stones reveal that they rarely get additional stones once calcium supplements are added to the diet.

B) Increasing dietary oxalate while reducing dietary calcium does not reduce the chances of kidney stone recurrence.

C) Kidney stone development is sometimes the result of an inherited disorder that can result in excessive production of calcium and oxalate.

D) Increasing calcium intake increases the amount of calcium eliminated through the intestines, which decreases the amount to be filtered by the kidneys.

E) Some kidney stones are composed of uric acid rather than a combination of calcium and oxalate.

The conclusion: This stimulus doesn't have a clear cut conclusion. It has several premises and a counter premise. We need to resolve the difference between the premises.

My summary of stimulus: one way for kidney stones to form is high concentrations of calcium in the kidneys. However, increasing calcium can reduce the chances of recurring kidney stones.

Resolve the discrepancy: In order to resolve this there needs to be outside info that states that increased calcium intake can decrease high concentrations of calcium in the kidneys. Maybe by taking lots of calcium the body is fooled into thinking it has a surplus of calcium and thus discards excess calcium rather than allow it to concentrate in the kidneys.

The answer choice will effectively use the premises.

On to the answer choices ....

A) Interesting but still doesn't resolve the discrepancy.

B) Totally irrelevant.

C) While this may be true it doesn't resolve the discrepancy.

D) Bingo. This brings in other info that demonstrates that concentrations will decrease in the kidneys.

E) So what? The issue is with concentrations of calcium in the kidneys.

Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 297
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 130 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

15 Sep 2009, 23:45
Quote:
Editorialist: Despite the importance it seems to have in our lives, money does not really exist. This is evident from the fact that all that would be needed to make money disappear would be a universal loss of belief in it. We witness this phenomenon on a small scale daily in the rises and falls of financial markets, whose fluctuations are often entirely independent of concrete causes and are the result of mere beliefs of investors.

The conclusion of the editorialist's argument can be properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?

A) Anything that exists would continue to exist even if everyone were to stop believing in it.

B) Only if one can have mistaken beliefs about a thing does that thing exist, strictly speaking.

C) In order to exist, an entity must have practical consequences for those who believe in it.

D) If everyone believes in something, then that thing exists.

E) Whatever is true of money is true of financial markets generally.

a) never said anywhere in the argument
b) out of scope
c) explicitly mentioned that market depends upon belief..and doesn't have any concrete cause
e) never said in the argument
Intern
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 9
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [1] , given: 0

Show Tags

16 Sep 2009, 02:32
1
KUDOS
Editorialist: Despite the importance it seems to have in our lives, money does not really exist. This is evident from the fact that all that would be needed to make money disappear would be a universal loss of belief in it. We witness this phenomenon on a small scale daily in the rises and falls of financial markets, whose fluctuations are often entirely independent of concrete causes and are the result of mere beliefs of investors.

The conclusion of the editorialist's argument can be properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?

Okay this one is tricky. I completed this question in 1 minute 37 seconds. This doesn't really have a clear conclusion so I usually create one in those situations. Here's what I came up with:

"Money is not real because if there is a universal loss of belief in money, it would disappear."

I substituted "exist" with "real" to make the problem easier to understand. So the assumption is that in order for something to exist or to be real it needs to continue to be real or to exist even if people stopped believing in it.

A) Anything that exists would continue to exist even if everyone were to stop believing in it.

This is a really good answer.

B) Only if one can have mistaken beliefs about a thing does that thing exist, strictly speaking.

Okay this answer choice is absurd.

C) In order to exist, an entity must have practical consequences for those who believe in it.

Nope.

D) If everyone believes in something, then that thing exists.

So if one person doesn't believe in something then I guess it doesn't exist. Absurd.

E) Whatever is true of money is true of financial markets generally.

Totally irrelevant

hey Franklin,

could u pls explain the answer to this question in more detail. i too marked D. But still nt convinced that why is A correct?

and yes, u r doing a fantastic job. it would help many of us.

please keep posting atleast 5-6 ques. each day.

i would soon post my appraoch.

parul.
Manager
Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 191
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 259 [1] , given: 18

Show Tags

16 Sep 2009, 12:07
1
KUDOS
Franklin wrote:
Franklin wrote:
Quote:
In an experiment, researchers played a series of musical intervals - two-note sequences - to a large diverse group of six-month old babies. They found that the babies paid significantly more attention when the intervals were perfect octaves, fifths, or fourths than otherwise. These intervals are prevalent in the musical systems of most cultures around the world. Thus, humans probably have a biological predisposition to pay more attention to those intervals than to others.

Which one of the following, if true most strengthens the argument?

A) Several similar experiments using older children and adults found that these subjects, too, had a general tendency to pay more attention to octaves, fifths, and fourths than to other musical intervals.

B) None of the babies in the experiment had previous exposure to music from any culture.

C) All of the babies in the experiment had been exposed to music drawn equally from a wide variety of cultures around the world.

D) In a second experiment, these same babies showed no clear tendency to notice primary colors more than other colors.

E) Octaves, fifths, and fourths were played more frequently during the experiment than other musical intervals were.

Okay everyone the answer is B.

This question took me 1 minute 27 seconds to complete.

After reading the stimulus and the question stem I went through my step by step process.

First, I identified the conclusion: "Thus, humans probably have a biological predisposition to pay more attention to those intervals than to others."

Next I thought of ways that I could strengthen the conclusion. The way I go about this is by formulating answers (prior to reading the answer choices) that would strengthen the conclusion. Here are a few I came up with ... some of these get a little crazy!
- Humans are able to hear octaves, fifths, and fourths better as babies than as adults because human babies have eardrums that are less developed.
- A baby's brain becomes highly alert when music is played that primarily uses octaves, fifths and fourths because a baby's brain identifies and processes sound more efficiently than sight and touch.
- The babies selected for the study did not have any exposure to any type of music during the first six months of life.

Armed with those possible answer choices I look at the answer choices.

A) Several similar experiments using older children and adults found that these subjects, too, had a general tendency to pay more attention to octaves, fifths, and fourths than to other musical intervals.

Hmmm ... seems pretty good but I don't like the whole "had a general tendency to pay more attention" phrase.

B) None of the babies in the experiment had previous exposure to music from any culture.

I really like this one. If the babies had no exposure to music prior to the experiment then that really strengthens the conclusion that there is a "biological disposition."

...

I am not convinced. I think the answer is A. Could you share the source of the OA?

Here's my reasoning (I'll focus only on A and B as the other answer choices are clearly not correct as explained above):

Argument goes as follows:
- In an experiment researchers found that babies paid more attention to octaves, fifths and fourths.
- Octaves, fifths and fourths are prevalent in the musical systems of most cultures around the world.
=> Thus, humans probably have a biological predisposition to pay more attention to octaves, fifths and fourths.

Now we need to find the answer choice that strengthens the argument the most.

A) Similar experiments have shown older children and adults to react similarly.
-> This strengthens the argument. Maybe not too much, but it still does so. It is not necessary to make any assumptions for this answer choice to work.

B) The children in the experiment had no previous exposure to music.
-> This could strengthen the argument more than answer choice A, but for this to hold it is necessary to assume that babies/people would find more interesting notes that they have heard before. And this is not necessarily true.

Therefore I believe answer choice A is better.

Cheers
_________________

Please kudos if my post helps.

Manager
Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 191
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 259 [0], given: 18

Show Tags

16 Sep 2009, 13:41
Superb post, great CR questions. +1

Thanks Franklin
_________________

Please kudos if my post helps.

Current Student
Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Posts: 187
Location: Ithaca, New York
Schools: Cornell University - The Johnson School
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 47 [4] , given: 62

Show Tags

16 Sep 2009, 14:53
4
KUDOS
Hi paruloberai and powerka and welcome to the thread!

These questions are from actual LSAT exams. If you'd like I can post the exam number and year if that is helpful.

Unfortunately, these questions don't have official explanations. However, if you copy part of the stimulus and paste it into google you may be able to find something. I haven't tried that yet but it may be worth a shot. I hoped that we could collectively come up with the logic behind the answer choice. As I stated in one of my posts I'm certainly not a guru and don't put myself out there as one. However, I am a reformed lawyer and have taken the LSAT and feel that I can help in some small way. The motivation behind this desire to help is that I felt many of the difficult questions I encountered on the GMAT back in August were very similar to the assumption, weaken and find the conclusion type questions found on the LSAT.

I will try to answer your questions to the best of my abilities ...

As for the answer choices to the question about music intervals my decision came down to A or B. I felt that although A was good that B was better. One rule that I follow by when answering strengthen type questions is to focus on what the conclusion is and how can it be strengthened. I also take each answer choice as true. I try to use logic to eliminate the answers.

For me I identified the conclusion which is: humans probably have a biological predisposition to pay more attention to those intervals than to others.

My focus then shifted to certain elements of the conclusion namely the "biological predisposition" part. I felt this was the main part that needed strengthening

If that's the case what would strengthen this assertion of biological predisposition. In answer B if a baby had never heard music before yet paid significantly more attention when the intervals were perfect octaves, fifths, or fourths this would be a absolutely killer argument and absolutely reinforces the whole biological disposition part of the conclusion.

I see where you're coming from in A but I could argue that the reason older children and adults had a general tendency to pay more attention to octaves, fifths, and fourths than to other musical intervals is because these intervals are prevalent in the musical systems of most cultures around the world thus giving those older children and adults exposure to those intervals and weakening the argument that it is a biological predisposition for babies.

I hope this is helpful. I don't know how else to explain the answer. You may want to try googling the stimulus and see if there is someone out there who explains the answer better.
Re: Franklin's Super-Fly Critical Reasoning Question Thread   [#permalink] 16 Sep 2009, 14:53

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9    Next  [ 168 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 Critical Reasoning Question - Clarification 1 14 May 2015, 01:43
1 Critical Reasoning question doubt 0 17 Nov 2014, 07:23
Help with Critical Reasoning Questions 5 22 Feb 2012, 20:17
11 Causality in Critical Reasoning Questions 6 07 Jan 2012, 21:43
Critical Reasoning Question 2 12 Jul 2009, 02:39
Display posts from previous: Sort by