That was great explanation perseverance. You seems to be strong in CR can you provide me some tips??
Thanks sagarsabnis. Although I'm far from an expert in CR, it is definitely my strongest area in Verbal. Here's my approach. Keep in mind this may not work for everyone, but it seems to help me out.
I think it's beneficial if you read my thought process with a sample question. As a good example, I'm going to use a question that you posted a few days ago if you don't mind.
In the United States, of the people who moved from one state to another when they retired, the percentage
who retired to Florida has decreased by three percentage points over the past ten years. Since many local
businesses in Florida cater to retirees, these declines are likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect
on these businesses and therefore on the economy of Florida.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument given?
(A) People who moved from one state to another when they retired moved a greater distance, on average,
last year than such people did ten years ago.
(B) People were more likely to retire to North Carolina from another state last year than people were
ten years ago.
(C) The number of people who moved from one state to another when they retired has increased significantly
over the past ten years.
(D) The number of people who left Florida when they retired to live in another state was greater last year than
it was ten years ago.
(E) Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other
First thing I do is read the question. I've heard various sources argue for and against this method but in my opinion, it's the best thing to read first. So in the question above, I would think to myself that I'm looking for a statement that weakens the argument. This way, while reading the passage, I can begin to come up with some ways I myself would weaken it even before looking at the answers. Then I would read the passage. It seems to me like a lot of these passages have very long, complex sentences to try and bore the reader and make him/her lose concentration. In order to counteract this effect, I then would lay out the argument in a way I understand. (Ok, of the people who retired to a different state, those who retired to FL declined by a %, which caused the FL economy to suffer). How can I weaken that? Well somehow the answer has to do with more
people retiring to FL.
Now go to the answers. In my experience, a lot of CR questions can be eliminated by POE and using the 'out of scope' method. In A, distance was never mentioned in the passage. Eliminate. In B, North Carolina?? what?? Out of scope. Eliminate. I get to C. Ah, an increase in the number of people. Good. Leave that. In D, people leaving FL? No good as I'm looking to get more people TO FL, boosting the state's economy. Elimnate. I get to E. Florida attracts more people. Yeah, that's good, but what does 'attract' mean?
So now I'm left with C and E. Odds are pretty good. A lot of the time CR answers can be eliminated down to 2. One seems to superficially help you and the other one is the correct answer. I would then compare the affect of the 2 remaining answers on the argument I layed out. In E, that's great that FL attracts more people but the passage clearly states that the percentage who actually
moved to FL decreased. Now look at C. "The number of people who [actually] moved out of state increased." Sample size is bigger meaning, theoretically, the ACTUAL number of people who moved to FL can be more this year than it was over the past 10 years, even though that number correlates to a 3% drop in TOTAL number of people moving to another state. This would have a positive effect on FL's economy, therefore weakening the argument.
The key for me is eliminating the 3 pretty obvious out of scope or stregthening answers and then comparing the affect of the 2 remaining answers.
I hope this helps. Please let me know if you'd like me to expand on anything.