I would like to build my query using the below question stems taken from Official Guides:Question Stem 1Which of the following must be true on the basis of the statements in the advertisement above.Question Stem 2Which of the following conclusions is most strongly supported by the information above.Question Stem 3Which of the following inferences is best supported by the statements made above.
Since all three stems have something different viz. one is must be true, another is conclusion, and the third one is inference, I would like to ask whether these all three stems fall under one specific question type, if yes, please tell the Question Stem, and approach to solve such questions.
If not, then, what is the correct process/ approach for solving such questions.
I have gone thro' MGMAT and Veritas
, but I'm not able to clear up mu doubt. Request you to please share your knowledge on this concept. The reason I am asking is because I have seen a great amount of variation in the answer choices w.r.t. question stems.
I would like to hear from you, and then I'l post my analysis on the questions and the correct answer choices.
I would put all three of those in the same basket, the "draw a conclusion/inference from the argument" CR question type. In all three of those, it's asking for something that is not explicitly said already, but which can be concluded, easily deduced, from the prompt argument. In other words, the prompt says P & Q & R, and you are looking for something that is a direct and unambiguous conclusion of P & Q & R. Almost all of the incorrect answer choices involve leaps or extra assumption --- things that could
be true, that could
have happened in that situation, but we don't know for sure.
For example, look at OG13 CR#66 -----
The prompt tells us that Country Z imposed an import ban on a certain category of product, and this increased the cost of these products, which adversely affected export dependent business in Country Z. What can we conclude?
Well, the incorrect answer are all things that ---- yes, it's plausible that this could
have happened, but we don't know for a fact that this must
For example, (E)
"Those industries started to move into export markets that they had previously judged unprofitable
." Maybe that happened. I could see where that might be logical course of action to pursue. BUT, the point is --- nothing in the prompt guarantees
that this is true. That's the standard in a "find a conclusion/inference" question --- we have to find something that is undeniably guaranteed by the prompt.
By contrast, (A)
"Profit margins in those industries were not high enough to absorb the rise in costs mentioned above
." We know the costs went up. We know these industries were hurt. The only way rising costs would hurt industries would be if they didn't have the financial wherewithal to cover the rising costs. That's undeniably obvious. If an industry has money to burn, then rising costs don't hurt it. If an industry has a relatively modest profit margin, rising costs would be a huge problem. Given the prompt, it's hard to see how (A)
In a way, that's a great test for this question type, similar to the negation test for assumptions. Something is an excellent conclusion/inference if it makes no sense to deny it after the prompt --- that is, if what the prompt says and a negation of the conclusion/inference involves a contradiction. That's how tightly a conclusion/inference needs to be bound to the logic of the original prompt.
Does all this make sense?
Magoosh Test Prep