Better Late than Never Solutions :D
1. On a "mimic the argument" question, it's useful to use logic notation to
understand the flow of the argument. In this case,we're told that IF A happens
(a match reaches a fifth-set tiebreak), THEN B willdefinitely happen (the lower-ranked player loses). Standard logic rules tell usthat, when given "If A, then B,"
the only definite conclusion we can draw is "If notB, then not A." In other words,
if A always leads to B, and B doesn't happen, then A can't have happened either.
The second sentence of the argument shows this principle: If not B (the lower-ranked player doesn't lose), then not A (there wasn't a fifth-set tiebreak). So we
need to find another argument that follows this pattern: If A, then B; if not B, then
not A.
(A) CORRECT. If A (a woman with a family history of twins gets pregnant 3
times), then B (she will have 1 set of twins). Note that these numbers are
precise: if she gets pregnant exactly three times, she will have exactly one set of
twins. If not B (a woman with a family history of twins has 2 sets of twins - that is,
not 1), then not A (she must have gotten pregnant either fewer than 3 times or
more than 3 times - that is, not exactly 3 times).
(B) If A (a salesman sells more product than anyone else), then B (he will earn
an all-expenses-paid vacation). If B (Joe earned the trip), then A (he must have
sold more than anyone else). We can see why logic rules do not include "if B,
then A" as a logical conclusion: A may always lead to B, but B does not
necessarily have to lead to A. There may be other ways to earn the trip besides
selling more than anyone else.
(C) If A (a newspaper's circulation surpasses 100,000), then B (the newspaper
can charge a 50% premium). If not A (the circulation doesn't surpass 100,000),
then not C (the newspaper cannot charge any premium ). The final assertion
here does not match the initial A / B argument We know nothing about any other
premium the newspaper might charge; we are only given information about
charging a 50% premium.
(D) If A (a student is in the top 10% of the class), then B (she will earn a
scholarship). If not A (Anna is not in the top 10%), then not B (she won't earn a
scholarship). We can see why logic rules do not include "if not A, then not B" as
a logical conclusion: A may always lead to B, but it doesn't have to be the only
way to reach B. There may be other ways to earn a scholarship besides being in
the top 10% of the class.
(E) If A (the team wins the Super Bowl), then B (the players receive a bonus). If
not A (a player was not on the winning team), then not B (the player won't receive
a bonus). We can see why logic rules do not include "if not A, then not B" as a
logical conclusion: A may always lead to B, but it doesn't have to be the only way
to reach B. There may be other ways to earn a bonus besides winning the Super
Bowl.
2. A person's immune system becomes hypersensitive to an allergen via repeated
exposure. We need to find an example of a series ofminor events (repeated
exposure to an allergen) can ultimately provoke an extreme response (a life-threatening reaction after even minimal exposure tothe allergen).
(A) In this situation, a behavior (diet) over time leads one to become more and
more susceptible to other chronic conditions (diabetes and high blood pressure).
In the real world, those chronic conditions might in turn lead to an extreme
response such as a heart attack, but this statementdoes not exactly illustrate
how a series of minor events can ultimately provokean extreme response to
those same minor events.
(B) CORRECT. A series of minor earthquakes (minor events) weaken the
existing infrastructure. The weakened infrastructure then allows a minor
earthquake to do greater damage (an extreme response) than would a single
major earthquake.
(C) This statement simply makes a judgment (those with peanut allergies should
avoid peanuts); it does not illustrate how a seriesof minor events can provoke an
extreme response.
(D) A person can recover from a problem (failing a test). This does not illustrate
how a series of minor events can provoke an extremeresponse.
(E) A person engaging in an activity regularly (speeding) is more likely to be
noticed for that activity than is a person who engages in it only occasionally. This
does not illustrate how a series of minor events can provoke an extreme
response.
3. The argument itself provides one example of the Doppler effect: a siren
decreases in perceived pitch as it approaches, passes and then moves away
from an observer. The answer choice that most closely describes a similar
scenario is a correct illustration of the Doppler effect.
(A) CORRECT. The passengers on the westbound train see the eastbound train
approaching, passing, then traveling away from them. The sound of the horn,
therefore, will decrease in pitch for the westboundpassengers.
(B) The passengers on the westbound train see the eastbound train approaching,
passing, then traveling away from them. The sound of the horn, therefore, will
decrease in pitch for the westbound passengers. This choice, however, says that
the sound will increase in pitch.
(C) Relative to the passengers on the eastbound train, the eastbound train and
its horn are in fact standing still! The Doppler effect only describes an “perceived
change in pitch that occurs when the source of a sound is in motion relative to
the observer,” a situation that is not illustrated by this choice.
(D) Relative to the passengers on the eastbound train, the eastbound train and
its horn are in fact standing still! The Doppler effect only describes an “perceived
change in pitch that occurs when the source of a sound is in motion relative to
the observer,” a situation that is not illustrated by this choice.
(E) Relative to the passengers on the eastbound train, the eastbound train and
its horn are in fact standing still! The Doppler effect only describes an “perceived
change in pitch that occurs when the source of a sound is in motion relative to
the observer,” so while it is true that the eastbound passengers would hear their
train’s horn at its true pitch, this situation doesnot illustrate the Doppler effect.
4. Jim initially presents two premises: 1) it costs more to make a penny and a nickel
than their face value; and 2) there is little that can be bought for a penny or a
nickel. He goes on to opine that the coins no longer provide any necessary
function to the economy, then concludes with a proposal to remove the coins
from circulation and declare the basic unit of American currency to be 10 cents.
Mary responds by implying that such a policy would be a "non-starter" based on
her assumptions of the practical effects of trying to do so.
(A) Mary’s assertion that all prices would round upto the nearest dime is not
presented anywhere in the passage as a statement offact; it is simply an
assumption made by Mary.
(B) By asserting that Congress would not approve such a proposal as part of her
response to Jim, Mary implies that such approval isnecessary.
(C) Mary provides an argument that such a proposal would have little practical
chance of being implemented because of its unpopularity. The unpopularity of a
public proposal is not necessarily correlated with whether the proposal is
“justified” or not.
(D) There is nothing in the passage that describes how Congress would treat
unpopular proposals. Mary’s assertion that Congresswould “never” approve
such an unpopular proposal is an assumption made onher part.
(E) CORRECT.Mary’s response is based on her assumption that Congress
would not approve Jim’s proposal because she assumes that it would be
extremely unpopular. She does not attack or even mention any of Jim’s premises
underlying his proposal.
5. The owner of the coffee store makes three statements citing evidence supporting
his belief that things are not going well at his store: 1) the store has become a
hangout for teenagers; 2) many of his adult customers do not appear
comfortable; and 3) some of them have told him theywill no longer frequent the
store. He then states that his goal is to maximize his revenue and directs his
store manager to discourage the teenagers from frequenting his store and to
cultivate a more adult clientele. We can reasonablyinfer that the owner believes
that his directive will help him achieve his goal of maximum revenue.
In response, the store manager makes no attempt to refute the manager’s three
statements, but instead offers some new evidence which implies that following
the owner’s directive may work against the owner’s goal of maximum revenue,
further implying that the status quo may be indeed be compatible with that goal.
(A) The store manager makes no attempt to question the veracity of the
statements of the owner. When the manager asks “Areyou sure?” he is
questioning the owner’s directive (or its effectiveness), not the veracity of the
owner’s evidence.
(B) The implementation of the owner’s directive is not mentioned by the manager
and is not relevant.
(C) CORRECT.By asserting that the average teenager spends justas much
money as the average adult and that there are more new customers than former
customers, the manager is presenting new evidence that implies that the current
situation is actually helping the owner achieve hisgoal more than his directive
would.
(D) The manager only states that the average teenager spends as much as the
average adult; hence, he makes a claim as to the relative revenue generated by
the average member of each group. He does not make any claim as to the
relative profitabilityof the average member of each group.
(E) The new evidence that the manager presents neither contradicts nor refutes
any of the evidence that the owner had previous presented.
6. We begin by analyzing the structure of the problem: Premise:Garbage is
usually collected here on Wednesdays, and the garbage collectors in this city
are extremely reliable. Premise:Monday was a public holiday. Premise:
After a public holiday that falls on a Monday, garbage throughout the city is
supposed to be collected one day later than usual. Conclusion:Garbage in
this neighborhood probably will not be collected until Thursday this week. The
argument is soundand the conclusion seems reasonable. The language in
the conclusion is not absolute (“probably”), and this is justified since the
language used in the argument—“usually” and “supposed to be”—is also
probabilistic. Knowing that the argument is valid, the question you must ask
yourself is, “How would I describe the structure ofthis argument?” Answer
choice (A): This answer forces you to make an assessment of the premises
(the “evidence”) as they relate to the conclusion. Are the premises irrelevant
to the conclusion? Clearly not. Therefore, this answer is incorrect. Answer
choice (B): This is a half-right, half-wrong answer. The argument does
establish “that one thing is likely to occur.” But,is this established by ruling
out all of the alternative possibilities? No, to dothat would mean presenting
arguments against the garbage being collected on Friday, Saturday, Sunday,
etc. Since this section of the answer choice does not occur, this answer is
incorrect. Also, because the argument does not ruleout all the alternatives,
the conclusion is not established “indirectly.” Answer choice (C): This is the
correct answer. Consider each piece of the argument: “providing
information”—a variety of information about the garbage situation is provided.
“application of a general rule”—the general rule isthat “After a public holiday
that falls on a Monday, garbage throughout the cityis supposed to be
collected one day later than usual.” “to a specificcase”—the specific case is
the pickup of garbage this week in this neighborhood. Given that all elements
occurred and the answer presents an accurate description of the way the
author made his or her argument, this answer is correct. Now, take a moment
and compare this answer to the prephrase you made after reading the
stimulus. How similar are the two? Given that you may not be familiar with
the language used by the test makers, the two may not be very similar. As
your preparation continues, you will become more comfortable with the
language and your Method of Reasoning pre-phrasing will improve. For
example, note the use in this answer of “general rule” to describe the last
sentence of the stimulus. The test makers could also have used a phrase like
“basic principle” to achieve the same result. Your job is to match their
language to what occurred in the stimulus. Answer choice (D): This answer is
an overgeneralization—a situation where one instance is used to make a
broad based conclusion. This is a Reverse Answer since the stimulus
actually uses a general principle and applies it toone instance. In addition,
the language in the answer is far too strong in saying “all actions of a certain
kind” when the language in the stimulus was probabilistic. Answer choice (E):
This is an Exaggerated Answer. The conclusion states that “Garbage in this
neighborhood probably will not be collected until Thursday this week” and the
use of “probably” is a clear and obvious indicationthat the author does not
think the Thursday garbage pickup is inevitable.
7. This is one of the greatest Method of Reasoning questions of all time. First
take a close look at the statements made by Jane and Mark. In the majority
of GMAT questions with two speakers—one identifiably male and the other
identifiably female—the male makes a mistake or an error of reasoning and
the female uses sound reasoning. This does not occur in every problem, but
it occurs enough to be more than random. Why? The thinking goes that in
order for GMAC to protect themselves against accusations that they are
biased against women, they create problems where the male is clearly the
one using faulty reasoning. Jane’s position: Jane concludes that Professor
Harper’s ideas are valueless because there is no way to evaluate a guitar
sound and determine what constitutes a better-sounding guitar. Mark’s
position: Mark also agrees that Professor Harper’s ideas are valueless, but
Mark’s reasoning is that if Harper’s ideas really worked, then they would have
been adopted by now. In making this analysis, Mark reveals that he believes
there is a way to determine that one guitar sounds better than another. Like
all GMAT questions, you must lock down the exact nature of the premises
and conclusions! Mark’s initial comment of “What’s more” leads most people
to believe he is in complete agreement with Jane. Yes, he agrees with her
conclusion, but his reason for doing so is completely contrary to Jane’s
reason. Mark actually misinterprets Jane’s claim, and this is why he says
“What’s more,” as if he is adding an additional piece of information that
supports her position. He is not; the premise that he uses contradicts Jane’s
premises. If you simply accept “What’s more” to mean that he is in complete
agreement with Jane, you will most certainly miss the question, and have no
idea you have done so. The problem becomes even more challenging
because the answer choices are brilliantly constructed: Answer choice (A):
Mark does not address a weakness in Jane’s argumentor show how one
could be overcome. Do not mistake the use of “What’s more” to automatically
mean that he is adding something helpful to the situation. Answer choice (B):
This is an answer chosen by many people, and it hasShell game aspects.
Mark’s argument does not have a premise in common with Jane’s argument;
rather, Mark’s argument has the conclusion in common with Jane’s
argument. Before you select this answer, use the Fact Test and ask yourself,
“Which premise do the two arguments have in common?” You won’t be able
to find one, and that would instantly disprove the answer. Answer choice (C):
This is a very clever Reverse Answer choice. The answer states: “Mark and
Jane use similar techniques to argue for different conclusions.” In fact, the
following happens in the stimulus: “Mark and Jane use different techniques to
argue for similar conclusions.” If you had any doubt that the makers of the
GMAT put the same amount of work into the wrong answers as the correct
answers, this answer choice should be convince you that they do. Answer
choice (D): An argument is the sum of the premises and conclusion. Although
Mark restates Jane’s conclusion, he does not restate her premises.
Therefore, he does not restate her argument and this answer is incorrect.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer. As discussed in the argument
analysis, Jane believes that there is no way to evaluate the merit of a guitar’s
sounds. On the opposite side, Mark’s response indicates he believes that
there is a way to evaluate the merit of a guitar’s sound (“because of the
improvement it makes in tonal quality”) and thus the two have conflicting
positions. This is another great example of a separator question: one that
scorers in a certain range will get and scorers in a lower range will not get.
This is also a dangerous question because many people think they have
chosen the correct answer when in fact they have missed it. The lesson here
is that you must be an active, prepared reader. Do not allow yourself to be
lured by Mark’s comment of “What’s more” into believing that he
automatically is in agreement with Jane. The test makers use that phrase to
see if you will read closely enough to discern his real argument or if you will
simply gloss over his comments on the basis of how they are introduced. The
GMAT always makes you pay if you gloss over any section of a stimulus.
8. The arguments of Jorge and Ruth can be analyzed asfollows: Jorge’s
Argument: Premise: Rock music of the 1960s was created by andfor people
who were then in their teens and early twenties. Premise:You were just an
infant then [in the 1960s]. Conclusion:You won’t be able to write well about
the rock music of the 1960s. Ruth’s Argument: Premise: There are living
writers who write well about ancient Roman culture,even though those
writers are obviously not a part of ancient Roman culture. Premise:Why
should my youth alone prevent me from writing well about the music of a
period as recent as the 1960s? Conclusion:Your reasoning is absurd. Note
that the question stem asks you to identify how Ruth responded. When two-
speaker stimuli are combined with Method of Reasoning questions, you are
typically asked to identify the reasoning of only one of the speakers (often the
second speaker). However, you must still understandthe argument of the
other speaker as the answer choices often refer to it. Now let’s use the
answer choices to discuss the structure of the argument. Answer choice (A):
Ruth does not challenge Jorge’s claim about her age. To the contrary, she
seemingly admits he is correct when she says “Why should my youth
alone...” Answer choice (B): Although Ruth uses an example that cites
culture, she does not clarify a definition of popular culture, and certainly not
one left implicit in Jorge’s argument. Answer choice (C): This is a Half Right,
Half Wrong answer. The first part of the answer choice—“using the example
of classical culture”—does occur in Ruth’s response, but she does not use
that example “in order to legitimize contemporary culture as an object worthy
of serious consideration.” Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer. An
analogy is a comparison between two items. In argumentation, analogies are
often used to clarify the relationship between the items or reveal a
fundamental truth about one of the items, as in “Tobetter understand the
operating system of your computer, think of it as the brain of your system.”
The use of “brain” in the preceding sentence is theanalogy. Analogies can be
used to challenge a position or support a position,but their strength often
rests on the relevant similarities between the two items or scenarios. In the
next chapter we will discuss False Analogies, wherean author uses an
analogy that is dissimilar enough to be non-applicable. As referenced in this
answer choice, Ruth analogizes writing about Roman culture to writing about
the 1960s to show that it is not unreasonable that someone who was an
infant can write about that time period. Jorge’s assumption is that if a person
was not a teen or older during the 1960s, then theycannot write well about
the music of that period. Since all elements described in the answer choice
occur and the answer describes the method used by Ruth, this is the correct
answer. Answer choice (E): Ruth does not attack Jorge’s qualification to
make his argument, just his pronouncement that she will not be able to write
well about the rock music of the 1960s.
9. The correct answer choice is (D). The arguments ofAnne and Sue can be
analyzed as follows: Anne’s Argument: Premise: Halley’s Comet, now in a
part of its orbit relatively far from the Sun, recently flared brightly enough to
be seen by telescope. Premise:No comet has ever been observed to flare
so far from the Sun before. Conclusion:Such a flare must be highly
unusual. Sue’s Argument:Premise: Usually no one bothers to try to observe
comets when they are so far from the Sun. Premise:This flare was observed
only because an observatory was tracking Halley’s Comet very carefully.
Conclusion:[Your conclusion is] Nonsense. As is often the case with two-speaker stimuli, the speakers disagree. In this case, Anne uses causal
reasoning to indicate that the cause of the sighting is unusual activity with
Halley’s comet: FU = the flare is highly unusual, NCO = no comet has ever
been observed to flare so far from the sun, FUNCO. Sue counters by citing
an alternate cause: no one has been looking for such a flare. NO = no one
bothers to try to observe comets when they are so far from the Sun, NCO =
no comet has ever been observed to flare so far from the sun, NONCO.
The problem now becomes an exercise in figuring outhow the test makers
will describe the alternative cause cited by Sue. Answer choice (A): This
answer quickly fails the Fact Test. Sue does not comment on use of the term
“observed” (other than to explain why the flare wasobserved). Answer choice
(B): Although Sue cites an explanation that is inconsistent with Anne’s claim,
she does not point out an inconsistency between twoof Anne’s claims.
Answer choice (C): Remember, evidence is the same as premises. Does Sue
contradict Anne’s premises? No, she only contradicts her conclusion. Do not
be drawn in by the word “nonsense.” That word is used to attack the
conclusion, not the premises of the argument. Answer choice (D): This is the
correct answer. In this answer, the alternate causeis described as an
“alternative explanation.” In most cases, a causal counterargument can be
described as offering an alternative explanation. Answer choice (E): This is a
Reverse Answer. The answer appears as follows: “undermining some of
Anne’s evidence while agreeing with her conclusion”If the answer choice
was reversed in the following manner, it would be correct: “undermining her
[Anne’s] conclusion while agreeing with some of Anne’s evidence ” The
evidence she agrees with is the first sentence of Anne’s argument (the
premise in the second sentence is not directly addressed).
10. The correct answer choice is (D). The heart of Ingrid’s argument is that
durability is measured by how many times a song is recorded, and using this
standard, rock music songs are not as durable as songs from the 1940s.
Jerome admits that rock music songs are not typically recorded multiple
times, but he then introduces a new way of judging durability—one based on
the continuing popularity of the original recording. Answer choice (A): Jerome
does not misinterpret the claim. He starts off by saying, “True, rock songs are
usually recorded only once,” and is a perfect characterization of part of
Ingrid’s statement. Answer choice (B): This is a good example of an answer
that might be kept as an initial Contender. However, as you further consider
the answer, you must identify the “contradiction” m entioned in the answer
choice. Does Jerome show that Ingrid’s claim must lead to a contradiction?
No. Note that there is a difference between a speaker contradicting an
argument (as Jerome does here) and a person making a statement that leads
to an internal contradiction (known as a self-contradiction.) An example of a
self-contradiction would be: “Everyone should join our country club. After all,
it’s an exclusive group that links many of the influential members of the
community.” The self-contradiction occurs when the speaker says “Everyone
should join” and then follows that by saying that it is “an exclusive group.”
Exclusive, by definition, means that some people are excluded. Answer
choice (C): As discussed in answer choice (A), Jerome accepts the evidence
presented by Ingrid. Because he does not undermine the truth of the
evidence used by Ingrid, this answer is incorrect. Again, evidence is another
way to say “premise.” We know that Jerome disagreeswith Ingrid’s
conclusion, but that does not mean that he disagrees with her premise.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer. Jerome’s standard for judging
durability is the popularity of the original. This contrasts with Ingrid’s
standard, which is the re-recording of the song. The point at issue is the
definition of durability. Answer choice (E): Again,use the Fact Test on this
answer. Where does Jerome claim that Ingrid’s knowledge is incomplete? As
we discussed previously, he has admitted that her premise is true.
close
31 Dec 2012, 07:25
18%
(01:44)
wrong 
