A Common Pattern in CR Incorrect Options

Question

Introduction

There is one mistake I have seen people make again and again while solving GMAT CR questions. I’m also quite prone to making that mistake. Rather, this mistake is the most common mistake I make while solving CR questions.

Since I’m aware of this, I always run a test in my mind to make sure that I’m not committing this mistake before submitting my answer to a CR question.

Before telling you about the mistake, I’d encourage you to attempt the following 5 questions before reading the rest of the article. If you do so, you’ll gain much more from the article.

Question 1

Question 2

Question 3

Question 4

Question 5

The common thread among these five questions is that people who chose the most popular incorrect option made the same mistake.

The MISTAKE

The mistake is choosing an option that does EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what is asked in the question.

Are you surprised that choosing an option that does the OPPOSITE is a common mistake?

I understand your surprise, but the reality is what it is.

Why people make this mistake

I believe there are a couple of reasons why we’re prone to choosing an opposite option:

does not show

marriage causes

no harder

How I avoid making this mistake

There are a couple of strategies I employ to avoid making this mistake:

1. Instead of thinking in terms of the question type, i.e., whether it is a strengthen question or a weaken question, I think in terms of what I’m looking for in the options. In other words, before I look at the options, I understand the question stem in the context of the argument and become clear as to what I’m looking for. For example, while solving Q2, I’ll be clear before looking at the options that I’m looking for an option that indicates that marriage DOES NOT cause people to live longer. In other words, an option that DOUBTS the link between marriage and living longer.

As I said, I’ll not be thinking in terms of strengthening or weakening the argument when I’m evaluating the options. I’ll be thinking in terms of whether the option indicates that marriage DOES NOT cause people to live longer.

Thus, when I read option B or D, I’ll see clearly that these options are doing the opposite of what I require - these options indicate that marriages causes people to live longer.

2. When I come across a negative option, I first understand and evaluate the impact of its positive version. For example, when I read option B of Q4, I’ll first understand it without “no”.

The containers in which concentrated cleaning products are packaged are harder to recycle than those in which regular cleaning products are packaged.

I’ll then evaluate its impact.
I can see that this positive version weakens the argument. Therefore, logically, the original version will strengthen the argument. (Negation of every weakener is a strengthener, and negation of every strengthener is a weakener.)
Thus, I’ll confidently reject this option, having understood that this option is strengthening the argument while I’m looking for a weakener.

What I’m suggesting here is that since a negative statement is difficult to understand and evaluate, I deal with the positive version of the statement first and find its impact. The impact of the original statement will be the opposite of the impact of the positive version. That’s how I deal with many negative option statements.

Example Questions

I’ll share my understanding of why the most popular incorrect options in the above 5 questions are doing the opposite of what is asked.

Question 1

In response to viral infection, the immune systems of mice typically produce antibodies that destroy the virus by binding to proteins on its surface. Mice infected with the herpesvirus generally develop keratitis, a degenerative disease affecting part of the eye. Since proteins on the surface of cells in this part of the eye closely resemble those on the herpesvirus surface, scientists hypothesize that these cases of keratitis are caused by antibodies to the herpesvirus.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to support the scientists’ reasoning?

(B) Mice that are infected with the herpesvirus but do not develop keratitis produce as many antibodies as infected mice that do develop keratitis.

In this question, we’re supposed to support that the cases of keratitis are caused by antibodies to the herpersvirus.

Option B compares two kinds of mice:

1. Mice that are infected with the herpesvirus but do not develop keratitis

2. Mice that are infected with the herpesvirus and develop keratitis

Option B says that these two kinds produce the same number of antibodies. This option indicates that antibodies are perhaps not responsible for keratitis since even mice that don’t have keratitis have the same number of antibodies. Thus, this option weakens scientists’ reasoning.

If option B had said,

Mice that are infected with the herpesvirus but do not develop keratitis produce significantly fewer antibodies than infected mice that do develop keratitis.

then this option would have strengthened the argument.

Question 2

Options B and D have been covered briefly above.

Question 3

Black Americans are, on the whole, about twice as likely as White Americans to develop high blood pressure. This likelihood also holds for westernized Black Africans when compared to White Africans. Researchers have hypothesized that this predisposition in westernized Blacks may reflect an interaction between western high-salt diets and genes that adapted to an environmental scarcity of salt.

Which of the following statements about present-day, westernized Black Africans, if true, would most tend to confirm the researchers’ hypothesis?

(D) Blood pressures are low among the Yoruba, who, throughout their history, have been situated far inland from sources of sea salt and far south of Saharan salt mines.

The argument offers an explanation for the high propensity among western Blacks to develop high BP. The explanation is that their genes are adapted to a scarcity of salt while western diets have high salt content. In other words, their bodies are used to low quantities of salt, so when they eat a lot of salt, they develop high BP.

The question asks us to strengthen this explanation. The explanation is that their high BP is a result of interaction between western high salt diets and their genes adapted to low quantities of salt.

Option D talks about people who have also been exposed to a scarcity of salt. Thus, given the logic of the argument, these people should also have high BP. However, the option says that these people have low BP. Thus, the option goes against the logic of the argument. (Please note that Yoruba have to be understood as westernized Black Africans since the question stem says that all the options are about westernized Black Africans.)

Question 4

Option B has been explained above.

Question 5

The recycling of municipal solid waste is widely seen as an environmentally preferable alternative to the prevailing practices of incineration and of dumping in landfills. Recycling is profitable, as the recycling programs already in operation demonstrate. A state legislator proposes that communities should therefore be required to adopt recycling and to reach the target of recycling 50 percent of all solid waste within 5 years.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the advisability of implementing the proposal?

(C) Existing recycling programs have had recurrent difficulties finding purchasers for their materials usually because of quantities too small to permit cost-effective pickup and transportation.

The proposal is to increase recycling of solid waste. We need to find an option that tells us a problem of the proposal.

Option C says that since current recycled quantities are very small, current recycling programs have difficulty finding purchasers for their materials. If this is the case, it makes sense to recycle bigger quantities. Thus, option C supports increasing recycling of solid waste. Therefore, this option is doing the OPPOSITE of what is asked in the question stem.

A few more questions

Here are a few more official questions in which the most popular incorrect option is doing the OPPOSITE of what is asked in the question. Enjoy attempting these questions!

The chanterelle, a type of wild mushroom

The spacing of the four holes on a fragment of a bone

It is widely assumed that people need to engage in intellectual activities

Over the last century, paleontologists have used small differences

A certain mayor has proposed a fee of five dollars per day

Leaf beetles damage willow trees by stripping away their leaves

Historians create ideas we call "history,"

Help me make this article better

You can make this article better by:

I hope this article helps you avoid this very common mistake! If you have any questions, I’ll be happy to help you. Please be aware that I also love reading appreciative comments

Archived Topic

Hi there,

This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.

Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Verbal Questions Forum

Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.

Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!

The chanterelle, a type of wild mushroom The spacing of the four holes on a fragment of a bone It is widely assumed that people need to engage in intellectual activities Over the last century, paleontologists have used small differences A certain mayor has proposed a fee of five dollars per day Leaf beetles damage willow trees by stripping away their leaves Historians create ideas we call "history," Help me make this article better You can make this article better by: 1. Sharing more official or unofficial questions in which popular incorrect options do the OPPOSITE of what is asked 2. telling me which parts of the article are not clear or need more elaboration 3. pointing out spelling, grammatical, or logical mistakes in the article I hope this article helps you avoid this very common mistake! If you have any questions, I’ll be happy to help you. Please be aware that I also love reading appreciative comments

jabhatta2 · Answer

Hi  ChiranjeevSingh  - Great article !

Quick question on what you wrote about,  Option B - Q4

This is the negative version

Can I also re-phrase the above as saying

The containers in which concentrated cleaning products are packaged are 
 (i) JUST AS hard 
(ii) Less harder  
to recycle than those in which regular cleaning products are packaged.

I then said
if (i) is true, (i) weakens

if (ii) is true, (ii) strengthens

Is my re-phrase accurate ?
If my re-phrase is accurate, thoughts on my strategy ?

himanshi1172 · Answer

Hi CJ!

Thankyou for a wonderful article - this was so helpful. Keeping in mind, heres a question for which I am completely unable to eliminate a wrong answer choice. Hope to get your insight on the same

Evolution is a phenomenon where different species change their anatomical, chemical or behavioral characteristics in response to the changes in their habitat. Since multiple species share a habitat, scientists expect their rates of evolution to be comparable. However, over the past hundred thousand years, homo sapiens evolved at a much higher rate than did chimpanzees living in the same habitat.

Which of the following resolves the paradox presented in the passage?

(A) Some habitats may change at rates faster than others causing species in it to evolve faster.
(B) Climatic changes over the last hundred thousand years have had a much greater positive evolutionary impact on food sources of Homo Sapiens than on that of other species sharing the habitat.
(C) Some species evolve their brains faster than others as they get into a more upright posture.
(D) There is a distinct evidence of an epidemic hundred thousand years ago that severely impacted the Chimpanzees.
(E) Singular events, although have an impact on the survival or extinction of a species, have little bearing on their long-term evolution rates.

Correct choice is B, and I understand why. But options C and D seem to be two contenders I cant reason with effectively to eliminate.

Here's my analysis:

Option C: Some species evolve faster as they get into an upright posture. Here assuming this is correct would make a leap that maybe Homo sapiens developed this posture 100,000 years ago. Is the leap unreasonable? Is it because The argument doesn't specify which species, but it does strengthen the possibility that Homo Sapiens evolved faster if they were "some of these species"

Option D: There is a distinct evidence of an epidemic hundred thousand years ago that severely impacted the Chimpanzees.

The epidemic affected the Chimps. This doesn't imply anything about what did or did not happen with the Homo Sapiens. Based on this alone, wouldn't it explain why Homo sapiens evolved faster because the evolution of chimpanzees got retarded after the pandemic?

Would appreciate your thoughts.

source: E-gmat

johanzac · Answer

Hi Himanshi,

Being a fellow GMAT aspirant, I thought I'll chime in to explain my understanding which helped in eliminating option C & D. Hope it helps you as well.

I think you are correct in your analysis of Option C. The ambiguity presented in the answer choice "some species" does not help us understand which species is it referring to. By outside knowledge it is fair to make the assumption that, it is Homo Sapiens who developed this upright posture, however while reasoning for a GMAT question it is imperative to only use the information given within the stimulus (and General truths). Hence the answer choice is incorrect for that reason.

A key point for Paradox questions is that you have to look for specificity as well, along with strengthening the logic, ie whether the right subjects are being addressed and there is no leap of assumption that is made.

For Option D It is not only that the choice doesn't explain anything about the Homo Sapiens, but also over archingly the main point for elimination, in my opinion, should be the fact that the impact of the epidemic on the evolutionary rate is not presented. It would be an unreasonable jump in logic, with the information at hand, to assume that the epidemic affected the evolutionary rate of the Chimpanzees negatively. Again as with analysis of option C, specificity in addressing the relevant relationships and subjects, and a clear impact on the conclusion by an event presented in an answer choice, is a crucial qualification for a correct paradox answer choice.

Hope this help. Cheers!
Johan

A Common Pattern in CR Incorrect Options

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards