It is currently 15 Dec 2017, 21:39

### 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

# CR -- rapidly.correctly get the test points

Author Message
Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 198

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 30

CR -- rapidly.correctly get the test points [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Nov 2016, 22:29
Hi mike,
I reviewed my recently CR GMAT prep question,
I wonder how to correctly get clues, It seems I will get the irrelevant clue/reasoning to the stems or I cannot get the clues.

for example: some GMAT Prep questions, (although some are posted in GC forums , I posted a new one because I wanna discuss these together in one topic for my similar fault , if this is not a good idea, tell me , I will post under the existed ones)

blue words are my reasoning or my thinking when read/practiced)

Many breakfast cereals are fortified with vitamin supplements.( ohhh, there is talk about cereals with vitamin) Some of these cereals provide 100 percent of the recommended daily requirement of vitamins. ( whether they can be absorb? I don't know). Nevertheless, a well-balanced breakfast, including a variety of foods, is a better source (switch to tallk well-balanced breakfast) of those vitamins than are such fortified breakfast cereals alone. ( a little confused, at the beginning, talks about cereals with vitamin, then introduces that cereals can provide daily requirement, while conclusion is well balance breakfast is better than cereals ALONE ,which makes me a little surprise that suddenly switch from "with vitamin" to "alone" )

Which of the following, if true, would most strongly support the position above? ( goal: need be same side of ""well balanced breakfast better"" )

(A) In many foods, the natural combination of vitamins with other nutrients makes those vitamins more usable by the body than are vitamins added in vitamin supplements
what I got is the breakfast with vitamin , nutrients seems include lot of , vitamin is one of this, I think of it as exaggerate -- cross off,
while, this is correct one, LOL

(B) People who regularly eat cereals fortified with vitamin supplements sometimes neglect to eat the foods in which the vitamins occur naturally.
we don't discuss what folks neglect, and even people neglect, it does not impact the conclusion, we won't change conclusion / idea / or whatever based on merely what people neglect. we maybe change or act if the effect of neglect need to pay attention.

(C) Foods often must be fortified with vitamin supplements because naturally occurring vitamins are removed during processing.
I think GMAT do like extreme words such as ""must"", I cross off it when read it

(D) Unprocessed cereals are naturally high in several of the vitamins that are usually added to fortified breakfast cereals.
unprocessed cereals, i think this is one kind of cereals, but we discuss general cereals here, so special cereals is not the point, i cross off it.

(E) Cereals containing vitamin supplements are no harder to digest than similar cereals without added vitamins.
digest, emmmm, containing vitamin is paralleled to well balanced , no harder digest than is paralleled to better, it articulates ""better"" in the conclusion .. -- credit one
while this is incorrect one.

like this one, I mistakenly picked it up , I think there may be some faults in my reasoning under mock, I not sure how to get the correct clue.

another question ( same stimulus in existed topic, but stem and choices are different from GMAR Prep 12 question)

Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this country now report that they know someone who is unemployed.

Sharon: But a normal, moderate level of unemployment is 5 percent, with 1 out of 20 workers unemployed. So at any given time if a person knows approximately 50 workers, 1 or more will very likely be unemployed.
( well, Roland's scope is the people know XXXX, Sharon's scope is the number of unemployed workers depends on different basic reference of workers, two different scopes, and another pointer I realized that it should be more than 2 among 50 worker according to 5%, I have no idea why it mentions 1 or more , maybe here is gap)

Sharon's argument is structured to lead to which of the following as a conclusion? (ohhh, It is inference, i need find a conclusion from Sharon's, i believe there is a link btw S and R )

(A) the fact that 90% of the people know someone who is unemployed is not an a indication that unemployment is abnormally high.
it is summary of R's, not S's, --- cross off,
While it is the correct one

(B) The current level of unemployment is not moderate.
I am not sure, but according 5%, it should be 1: 20, 2+ : 50... -- cross off

(C) if at least 5% of workers are unemployed, the result of questioning a representative group of people cannot be the percentage Roland cites.
it links two different scope, -- credit one.
while this is incorrect one

(D) It is unlikely that the people whose statements Roland cites are giving accurate reports.
question the accuracy, this is not the discussion, cross off

(E) If an unemployment figure is given a certain percent, the actual percentage of those without jobs even higher.
actual percentage is higher? no, 5% is much less than 90%, and 5% , 90% is different scope. cross off

when I read the OE, I figured out the test point is that high percentage is not certain high number , and S's statement proves it. -- LOL, I run away the pointer.

3rd one,
Guitar(general ones ) strings often go “dead”—become less responsive and bright in tone—after a few weeks of intense use ( not new one ). A researcher whose son is a classical guitarist( his/her son is classical guitarist, not himself/herself, whether he/she based the hypothesized on his/her son's view? whether he/she is a guitarist?) hypothesized that dirt and oil, rather than changes in the material properties of the string, were responsible.( conclusion, dirt and oil is the cause, not material )

Which of the following investigations is most likely to yield significant information that would help to evaluate the researcher’s hypothesis? ( strengthen dirt and oil and weaken material, )

further confused: if i want to weaken mutual exclusive causes #1 and # 2, stimulus points out cause #1 , not cause #2, if strengthen, then same side that cause #1, not cause #2, if weaken, then on the opposite side that cause #2 rather than cause #1

like this one,
I should emphasize ONLY dirty and oil if strengthen,
I should emphasize ONLY material if weaken, right ?

(A) Determining if a metal alloy is used to make the strings used by classical guitarists
I am not guitarist, but I guess alloy is one kind material of string, if so, it is a special material, can not make general claims -- cross off.
another issue is ""classical"", classical is a trap that just a modifier of the research's son, actual nothing about guitar, so I can cross off the other similar one if mentioned classical.

(B) Determining whether classical guitarists make their strings go dead faster than do folk guitarists
I don't care the classical guitarists or folk guitarists -- cross off

(C) Determining whether identical lengths of string, of the same gauge, go dead at different rates when strung on various brands of guitars
it mentioned the material, and various guitars, which parallel with general guitars at the beginning, it's nice -- credit one
while it is a incorrect one

(D) Determining whether a dead string and a new string produce different qualities of sound
the scope is old one, and the topic is the cause of the ""dead"" --- cross off

(E) Determining whether smearing various substances on new guitar strings causes them to go dead”
smearing , sounds substances are smeared as intention by people, and substance are various , maybe something except dirty and oil, it exaggerate -- cross off
another issue is that even the cause is not substances , it still cannot point out that the cause is material.
while, this is the correct one

I genuinely want your guidance that i can correctly, rapidly get the test point rather than "run away"/incorrectly, and appreciate if you point out my fault.

thanks million

have a nice day
>_~

Zoe

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 30

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4569

Kudos [?]: 8988 [0], given: 113

Re: CR -- rapidly.correctly get the test points [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Nov 2016, 17:40
zoezhuyan wrote:
Hi mike,
I reviewed my recently CR GMAT prep question,
I wonder how to correctly get clues, It seems I will get the irrelevant clue/reasoning to the stems or I cannot get the clues.

for example: some GMAT Prep questions, (although some are posted in GC forums , I posted a new one because I wanna discuss these together in one topic for my similar fault , if this is not a good idea, tell me , I will post under the existed ones)

blue words are my reasoning or my thinking when read/practiced)

Many breakfast cereals are fortified with vitamin supplements.( ohhh, there is talk about cereals with vitamin) Some of these cereals provide 100 percent of the recommended daily requirement of vitamins. ( whether they can be absorb? I don't know). Nevertheless, a well-balanced breakfast, including a variety of foods, is a better source (switch to tallk well-balanced breakfast) of those vitamins than are such fortified breakfast cereals alone. ( a little confused, at the beginning, talks about cereals with vitamin, then introduces that cereals can provide daily requirement, while conclusion is well balance breakfast is better than cereals ALONE ,which makes me a little surprise that suddenly switch from "with vitamin" to "alone" )

Which of the following, if true, would most strongly support the position above? ( goal: need be same side of ""well balanced breakfast better"" )

(A) In many foods, the natural combination of vitamins with other nutrients makes those vitamins more usable by the body than are vitamins added in vitamin supplements
what I got is the breakfast with vitamin , nutrients seems include lot of , vitamin is one of this, I think of it as exaggerate -- cross off,
while, this is correct one, LOL

(B) People who regularly eat cereals fortified with vitamin supplements sometimes neglect to eat the foods in which the vitamins occur naturally.
we don't discuss what folks neglect, and even people neglect, it does not impact the conclusion, we won't change conclusion / idea / or whatever based on merely what people neglect. we maybe change or act if the effect of neglect need to pay attention.

(C) Foods often must be fortified with vitamin supplements because naturally occurring vitamins are removed during processing.
I think GMAT do like extreme words such as ""must"", I cross off it when read it

(D) Unprocessed cereals are naturally high in several of the vitamins that are usually added to fortified breakfast cereals.
unprocessed cereals, i think this is one kind of cereals, but we discuss general cereals here, so special cereals is not the point, i cross off it.

(E) Cereals containing vitamin supplements are no harder to digest than similar cereals without added vitamins.
digest, emmmm, containing vitamin is paralleled to well balanced , no harder digest than is paralleled to better, it articulates ""better"" in the conclusion .. -- credit one
while this is incorrect one.

like this one, I mistakenly picked it up , I think there may be some faults in my reasoning under mock, I not sure how to get the correct clue.

Dear zoezhuyan,

How are you, my friend? I'm happy to respond.

It's fine that you grouped three CR here. In the interest of time, I think I will respond to only one at a time.

There are a several factors going on here. GMAT CR are real world arguments, and the more you can have a sense of real world arguments, the more it would help you. See this blog:
GMAT Critical Reasoning and Outside Knowledge
Reading real world arguments, in newspapers and news journals, would help you develop good instincts for arguments. I know you have less than a month to your GMAT and you want to achieve a high level of master. I would say, that, in addition to all the GMAT-specific preparation you are going to do, you need to read & analyze so many real world arguments that you become a walking encyclopedia of issues in the modern business world. All GMAT CR arguments are designed so that if you have some familiarity with the real world issues, it will help you get the answer.

Now, this first question about breakfast cereals is essentially biological. It would help to do some science reading, for example in Scientific American, if you don't have a science degree in your undergrad. Nevertheless, unless you were familiar with the specific topic of the biology of vitamin assimilation in the human digestive system, it would be hard to have any outside knowledge that would help you.

1) Many breakfast cereals are fortified with vitamin supplements.
2) Some of these cereals provide 100 percent of the recommended daily requirement of vitamins.
3) Nevertheless, a well-balanced breakfast, including a variety of foods, is a better source of those vitamins than are such fortified breakfast cereals alone.

Sentences #1 & #2 are purely factual, and both contain breakfast cereals. These two facts seem to indicate that we can get all the vitamins we need from fortified breakfast cereals.
Sentence #3 is a radical change in direction. It upsets the expectation created by the first two sentences. This is a paradox question, because it creates expectations then changes them. It's the job of a paradox to create a certain amount of confusion, so you are hardly to blame if you found the prompt a bit confusing. In a way, that's the point. The prompt presents a paradox, and the answer choices will resolve it.

I will point out that on GMAT CR strengthen or weaken questions, it's often easy to predict the answer right after reading the prompt, but on a paradox question, it's usually hard or impossible to predict the prompt. Usually we just have to go through the answer choices. I think, after the prompt, you had the basic right idea: what makes the well-balanced breakfast better than the fortified cereals? Why does the former provide us with more vitamins with the latter if the latter contains all that we need?

(A) In many foods, the natural combination of vitamins with other nutrients makes those vitamins more usable by the body than are vitamins added in vitamin supplements
what I got is the breakfast with vitamin , nutrients seems include lot of , vitamin is one of this, I think of it as exaggerate -- cross off,
I'm not totally sure I understand what you were communicating about your reasoning here. There is no exaggeration here. This simply says that, for whatever reason, the vitamins from the well-balanced breakfast gives us vitamins that are "more usable by the body."
Well-balanced breakfast ==> body can use the vitamins well
Fortified cereals ==> body can't necessarily use all the vitamins that are there.
This is a valid reason why a well-balanced breakfast would provide more vitamins than would fortified cereals.

For (C), I would say this is tricky. The GMAT doesn't like "must" when we are drawing conclusions or assumptions or inferences or some kind of reasoning, but in terms of a purely factual statement about the world, "must" is fine.
Chinese citizens who want to live and work in the US must get a visa.
A person must go through several years of medical school to become an MD.
A car with plenty of gas that doesn't even turn over [url]must[/url] have a mechanical or electrical problem.

Those are factual true statements. Choice (C), in attempting to resolve a paradox, is providing another factual statement that contains the word "must," so we must accept this the way we would accept evidence. The word "must," by itself, is absolutely no reason to reject (C).

Choice (E) compares fortified cereals to cereals that haven't been fortified. These latter are not discussed in the prompt at all.

I think part of the problem is the phrase "a well-balanced breakfast." This is a phrase that is culturally understood in the USA. It means a breakfast that has food from different food groups. For example, when I think of a "a well-balanced breakfast," I would think of
1) eggs or French toast
2) some source of grain (whole wheat toast or cereal)
3) lots of fresh fruit
That's a big breakfast with different kinds of food. The eggs provide some categories of nutrients, and the fruit provides very different nutrients. That's what is meant by "a well-balanced breakfast." Choice (E) is comparing one kind of cereal to another. No single cereal, by itself, would constitute "a well-balanced breakfast."

This is part of what makes (A) stand out. (A) talks about "many kinds of food," which calls to mind the variety that must be in "a well-balanced breakfast."

You see, GMAT CR depends on the connotations of phrases such as "a well-balanced breakfast." The phrase has a very specific meaning in the mind of American speakers, and this meaning is crucial for the question. The only way you can get a sense of all the possible phrases that could show up is to develop a habit of reading. See:
How to Improve Your GMAT Verbal Score
You are going to be very busy preparing for the GMAT in the next month.

Does all this make sense?

Take very good care of yourself, my friend!

Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Kudos [?]: 8988 [0], given: 113

Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 198

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 30

Re: CR -- rapidly.correctly get the test points [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Nov 2016, 02:38
mikemcgarry wrote:
1) Many breakfast cereals are fortified with vitamin supplements.
2) Some of these cereals provide 100 percent of the recommended daily requirement of vitamins.
3) Nevertheless, a well-balanced breakfast, including a variety of foods, is a better source of those vitamins than are such fortified breakfast cereals alone.

Sentences #1 & #2 are purely factual, and both contain breakfast cereals. These two facts seem to indicate that we can get all the vitamins we need from fortified breakfast cereals.
Sentence #3 is a radical change in direction. It upsets the expectation created by the first two sentences. This is a paradox question, because it creates expectations then changes them. It's the job of a paradox to create a certain amount of confusion, so you are hardly to blame if you found the prompt a bit confusing. In a way, that's the point. The prompt presents a paradox, and the answer choices will resolve it.

Hi mike,
I still think of this prompt is a strengthen rather than paradox, even the conclusion creates expectations ?

mikemcgarry wrote:
(A) In many foods, the natural combination of vitamins with other nutrients makes those vitamins more usable by the body than are vitamins added in vitamin supplements
what I got is the breakfast with vitamin , nutrients seems include lot of , vitamin is one of this, I think of it as exaggerate -- cross off,
I'm not totally sure I understand what you were communicating about your reasoning here. There is no exaggeration here. This simply says that, for whatever reason, the vitamins from the well-balanced breakfast gives us vitamins that are "more usable by the body."
Well-balanced breakfast ==> body can use the vitamins well
Fortified cereals ==> body can't necessarily use all the vitamins that are there.
This is a valid reason why a well-balanced breakfast would provide more vitamins than would fortified cereals.

Does all this make sense?

Take very good care of yourself, my friend!

Mike

wonderful,
would you please clarify "exaggerate" ?
seems I will mistakenly interpret "exaggerate"..

For example:
One session of GMAT is verbal, and verbal includes SC, RC, and CR
so if we discuss CR, then the scope is CR, it will be "exaggerate" if we switch to verbal.

back to A)
I view A as "exaggerate" because nutrients include a lot of stuff, such as vitamin, and here nutrients is like "verbal" , and vitamin is like "CR" ,
in the prompt, we discuss vitamin, so it is "exaggerate" IMO if talk about nutrients.

on the other hand,
although I did not practice massive CR questions, it seems that I have not seen a exaggerate choice is correct..

waiting for your explanations for "exaggerate",
appreciate if you share your experience that exaggerate choice is correct.
And another two questions.

have a nice day
>_~

Zoe

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 30

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4569

Kudos [?]: 8988 [0], given: 113

Re: CR -- rapidly.correctly get the test points [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Nov 2016, 16:17
zoezhuyan wrote:
mikemcgarry wrote:
1) Many breakfast cereals are fortified with vitamin supplements.
2) Some of these cereals provide 100 percent of the recommended daily requirement of vitamins.
3) Nevertheless, a well-balanced breakfast, including a variety of foods, is a better source of those vitamins than are such fortified breakfast cereals alone.

Sentences #1 & #2 are purely factual, and both contain breakfast cereals. These two facts seem to indicate that we can get all the vitamins we need from fortified breakfast cereals.
Sentence #3 is a radical change in direction. It upsets the expectation created by the first two sentences. This is a paradox question, because it creates expectations then changes them. It's the job of a paradox to create a certain amount of confusion, so you are hardly to blame if you found the prompt a bit confusing. In a way, that's the point. The prompt presents a paradox, and the answer choices will resolve it.

Hi mike,
I still think of this prompt is a strengthen rather than paradox, even the conclusion creates expectations ?

mikemcgarry wrote:
(A) In many foods, the natural combination of vitamins with other nutrients makes those vitamins more usable by the body than are vitamins added in vitamin supplements
what I got is the breakfast with vitamin , nutrients seems include lot of , vitamin is one of this, I think of it as exaggerate -- cross off,
I'm not totally sure I understand what you were communicating about your reasoning here. There is no exaggeration here. This simply says that, for whatever reason, the vitamins from the well-balanced breakfast gives us vitamins that are "more usable by the body."
Well-balanced breakfast ==> body can use the vitamins well
Fortified cereals ==> body can't necessarily use all the vitamins that are there.
This is a valid reason why a well-balanced breakfast would provide more vitamins than would fortified cereals.

Does all this make sense?

Take very good care of yourself, my friend!

Mike

wonderful,
would you please clarify "exaggerate" ?
seems I will mistakenly interpret "exaggerate"..

For example:
One session of GMAT is verbal, and verbal includes SC, RC, and CR
so if we discuss CR, then the scope is CR, it will be "exaggerate" if we switch to verbal.

back to A)
I view A as "exaggerate" because nutrients include a lot of stuff, such as vitamin, and here nutrients is like "verbal" , and vitamin is like "CR" ,
in the prompt, we discuss vitamin, so it is "exaggerate" IMO if talk about nutrients.

on the other hand,
although I did not practice massive CR questions, it seems that I have not seen a exaggerate choice is correct..

waiting for your explanations for "exaggerate",
appreciate if you share your experience that exaggerate choice is correct.
And another two questions.

have a nice day
>_~

Zoe

Dear zoezhuyan,
How are you, my friend? I am happy to respond.

My friend, the way you are using the word "exaggerate" suggests to me that you don't fully understand its use.

When I exaggerate, I make claims about myself that far exceed anything with a factual basis. In other words, I am trying to make myself look better than I am. For example, I teach the GMAT and I wrote GMAT practice questions. If I were to say, "I am the best GMAT teacher in the world" or "I write the best GMAT practice question on earth," then these would be exaggerations. They are positive claims beyond what can be factually supported.

If the argument exaggerated, then it would have to have made some positive claims that we knew was factually false, making something appear more desirable or beneficial than it is. This would never happen in a GMAT CR argument. Perhaps in an inference question, one of the answer choices could exaggerate some claim made in the prompt: we would have to have some basis for comparing the exaggeration to what is real.

Simply changing the scope of a discussion, by itself, is not exaggeration. Something is exaggeration if there is a deliberate effort to make claims beyond what is factually true in order to make someone or something look better than it is. If someone says, "The GMAT Verbal section is simply CR," then that's factually incorrect, but it's not really exaggeration. Exaggeration most often has the connotation of making something look more positive that it is.

Also, grammatically, it is 100% wrong to say "I think of X as [verb]" We cannot use a verb after the preposition "as"--we have to use a noun.
You wrote: "I think of it as exaggerate" = 100% grammatically incorrect
Correct = "I think of it as an exaggeration."

Whether we classify this argument as a "paradox" argument or a "strengthen" argument really doesn't matter. The categories of arguments are an attempt to discern some patterns among the possible CR questions, but the GMAT is very skilled at writing questions that straddle 2+ categories or that don't fit in any category. It's less important to categorize a question. It's more important to understand what is unique and noteworthy about the question.

Do you have questions about my analysis of it? Let me know.

Have a wonderful day, my friend!

Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Kudos [?]: 8988 [0], given: 113

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4569

Kudos [?]: 8988 [0], given: 113

Re: CR -- rapidly.correctly get the test points [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Nov 2016, 12:00
zoezhuyan wrote:
Hi mike,
I reviewed my recently CR GMAT prep question,
I wonder how to correctly get clues, It seems I will get the irrelevant clue/reasoning to the stems or I cannot get the clues.

...

another question ( same stimulus in existed topic, but stem and choices are different from GMAR Prep 12 question)

Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this country now report that they know someone who is unemployed.

Sharon: But a normal, moderate level of unemployment is 5 percent, with 1 out of 20 workers unemployed. So at any given time if a person knows approximately 50 workers, 1 or more will very likely be unemployed.
( well, Roland's scope is the people know XXXX, Sharon's scope is the number of unemployed workers depends on different basic reference of workers, two different scopes, and another pointer I realized that it should be more than 2 among 50 worker according to 5%, I have no idea why it mentions 1 or more , maybe here is gap)

Sharon's argument is structured to lead to which of the following as a conclusion? (ohhh, It is inference, i need find a conclusion from Sharon's, i believe there is a link btw S and R )

(A) the fact that 90% of the people know someone who is unemployed is not an a indication that unemployment is abnormally high.
it is summary of R's, not S's, --- cross off,
While it is the correct one

(B) The current level of unemployment is not moderate.
I am not sure, but according 5%, it should be 1: 20, 2+ : 50... -- cross off

(C) if at least 5% of workers are unemployed, the result of questioning a representative group of people cannot be the percentage Roland cites.
it links two different scope, -- credit one.
while this is incorrect one

(D) It is unlikely that the people whose statements Roland cites are giving accurate reports.
question the accuracy, this is not the discussion, cross off

(E) If an unemployment figure is given a certain percent, the actual percentage of those without jobs even higher.
actual percentage is higher? no, 5% is much less than 90%, and 5% , 90% is different scope. cross off

when I read the OE, I figured out the test point is that high percentage is not certain high number , and S's statement proves it. -- LOL, I run away the pointer

Dear Zoe,

How are you, my friend? I'm happy to respond!

I don't know that I would say that Roland and Sharon have different scopes. In some sense, they are both concerned with how many people know someone unemployed. Roland cites a number that seems, by itself, to indicate a big problem: the big implication of his statement is that unemployment is too high. Sharon puts the claim into context and normalizes it. demonstrating that unemployment is not too high.

Also, a point about probability. If 1/20 people in the population is unemployed, that is NOT a guarantee that if I know 20 people, I will know exactly one unemployed person. Probability doesn't work that way. It's true that if several different people each know 50 people, then on average, each will know about 2.5 unemployed people. That's the average over a large number of people, but if we take any individual person, a person who knows fifty people, then it's possible this person knows 2 unemployed people, or it's possible that this person knows one or none. Knowing none is not likely, but it is possible: over a large number of such people, it would happen about $$(19/20)^{50}$$ = 0.0769 = 7.69% of the time. Thus, Sharon is being very logically conservative, understating her case--this is a often a sign of a particularly strong argument. Rather than make the bolder claim that many people who know 50 people would know at least 2 unemployed people, she makes the more conservative but much more solid claim that such people likely will know at least 1. The fact that some will know more than 1 only strengthens her argument further.

A lot of GMAT CR is thinking about why people are saying what they are saying. Roland is trying to get us to worry that unemployment is too high. Sharon counters this, telling us to relax--it's not high after all. Also, notice: Sharon never says that the number Roland cited is wrong. Not only does she agree with it: she actually explains why, even when unemployment is low, one would get a statistic such as the one Roland cited.

Choice (A) is a beautiful summary of exactly what Sharon is trying to communicate. That's the OA.

Look at (C).
(C) if at least 5% of workers are unemployed, the result of questioning a representative group of people cannot be the percentage Roland cites.
This says the exact opposite of what Sharon says. This says that if only 5% are unemployed, it's not possible that 90% of the people out there would say that they know some unemployed. In fact, Sharon says the opposite: if only only 5% are unemployed, then most people, who typically know at least 50 people, will know someone unemployed. Sharon is NOT questioning the number the Roland cites. Quite the opposite, she brilliantly explains why the number he cites would be correct even with low unemployment numbers.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Kudos [?]: 8988 [0], given: 113

Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 198

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 30

Re: CR -- rapidly.correctly get the test points [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Nov 2016, 18:31
mikemcgarry wrote:
Dear zoezhuyan,
How are you, my friend? I am happy to respond.

My friend, the way you are using the word "exaggerate" suggests to me that you don't fully understand its use.

When I exaggerate, I make claims about myself that far exceed anything with a factual basis. In other words, I am trying to make myself look better than I am. For example, I teach the GMAT and I wrote GMAT practice questions. If I were to say, "I am the best GMAT teacher in the world" or "I write the best GMAT practice question on earth," then these would be exaggerations. They are positive claims beyond what can be factually supported.

If the argument exaggerated, then it would have to have made some positive claims that we knew was factually false, making something appear more desirable or beneficial than it is. This would never happen in a GMAT CR argument. Perhaps in an inference question, one of the answer choices could exaggerate some claim made in the prompt: we would have to have some basis for comparing the exaggeration to what is real.

Simply changing the scope of a discussion, by itself, is not exaggeration. Something is exaggeration if there is a deliberate effort to make claims beyond what is factually true in order to make someone or something look better than it is. If someone says, "The GMAT Verbal section is simply CR," then that's factually incorrect, but it's not really exaggeration. Exaggeration most often has the connotation of making something look more positive that it is.

Also, grammatically, it is 100% wrong to say "I think of X as [verb]" We cannot use a verb after the preposition "as"--we have to use a noun.
You wrote: "I think of it as exaggerate" = 100% grammatically incorrect
Correct = "I think of it as an exaggeration."

Whether we classify this argument as a "paradox" argument or a "strengthen" argument really doesn't matter. The categories of arguments are an attempt to discern some patterns among the possible CR questions, but the GMAT is very skilled at writing questions that straddle 2+ categories or that don't fit in any category. It's less important to categorize a question. It's more important to understand what is unique and noteworthy about the question.

Do you have questions about my analysis of it? Let me know.

Have a wonderful day, my friend!

Mike

Thanksmike,
I interpret further of exaggeration. After reading your explanation, I reviewed some OG13 CR questions. Would you please confirm whether my interpretation of exaggeration is correct.
OG 13 CR # 91
Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority would have the public believe that increases in the number of marine fish caught demonstrate that this resource is no longer endangered. This is a specious argument, as unsound as it would be to assert that the ever-increasing rate at which rain forests are being cut down demonstrates a lack of danger to that resource. The real cause of the increased fish-catch is a greater efficiency in using technologies that deplete resources.

The environmentalist’s statements, if true, best support which of the following as a conclusion?

(A) The use of technology is the reason for the increasing encroachment of people on nature.
(D) Modern technologies waste resources by catching inedible fish.

Here, I think that A is exaggerated, right?
IMO, the phrase “on nature” in A indicates generalization results of use technology, while the prompt refutes commissioner’s believe by citing an analogy.
I think that D deliberately shrinks the scope, although I have no idea about the terminology, because the prompt does not discuss a special group of the fish.

OG13 CR #121
The spacing of the four holes on a fragment of a bone flute excavated at a Neanderthal campsite is just what is required to play the third through sixth notes of the diatonic scale—the seven-note musical scale used in much of Western music since the Renaissance. Musicologists therefore hypothesize that the diatonic musical scale was developed and used thousands of years before it was adopted by Western musicians.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the hypothesis?

(D) Flutes are the simplest wind instrument that can be constructed to allow playing a diatonic scale.

I view D as exaggeration because D exaggerates subject to be flutes while the prompt discusses bone flutes.
Again, thanks for your pointer of grammar error.

Have a nice day
>_~

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 30

Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 198

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 30

Re: CR -- rapidly.correctly get the test points [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Nov 2016, 20:11
mikemcgarry wrote:
Dear Zoe,

How are you, my friend? I'm happy to respond!

I don't know that I would say that Roland and Sharon have different scopes. In some sense, they are both concerned with how many people know someone unemployed. Roland cites a number that seems, by itself, to indicate a big problem: the big implication of his statement is that unemployment is too high. Sharon puts the claim into context and normalizes it. demonstrating that unemployment is not too high.

Also, a point about probability. If 1/20 people in the population is unemployed, that is NOT a guarantee that if I know 20 people, I will know exactly one unemployed person. Probability doesn't work that way. It's true that if several different people each know 50 people, then on average, each will know about 2.5 unemployed people. That's the average over a large number of people, but if we take any individual person, a person who knows fifty people, then it's possible this person knows 2 unemployed people, or it's possible that this person knows one or none. Knowing none is not likely, but it is possible: over a large number of such people, it would happen about $$(19/20)^{50}$$ = 0.0769 = 7.69% of the time. Thus, Sharon is being very logically conservative, understating her case--this is a often a sign of a particularly strong argument. Rather than make the bolder claim that many people who know 50 people would know at least 2 unemployed people, she makes the more conservative but much more solid claim that such people likely will know at least 1. The fact that some will know more than 1 only strengthens her argument further.

A lot of GMAT CR is thinking about why people are saying what they are saying. Roland is trying to get us to worry that unemployment is too high. Sharon counters this, telling us to relax--it's not high after all. Also, notice: Sharon never says that the number Roland cited is wrong. Not only does she agree with it: she actually explains why, even when unemployment is low, one would get a statistic such as the one Roland cited.

Choice (A) is a beautiful summary of exactly what Sharon is trying to communicate. That's the OA.

Look at (C).
(C) if at least 5% of workers are unemployed, the result of questioning a representative group of people cannot be the percentage Roland cites.
This says the exact opposite of what Sharon says. This says that if only 5% are unemployed, it's not possible that 90% of the people out there would say that they know some unemployed. In fact, Sharon says the opposite: if only only 5% are unemployed, then most people, who typically know at least 50 people, will know someone unemployed. Sharon is NOT questioning the number the Roland cites. Quite the opposite, she brilliantly explains why the number he cites would be correct even with low unemployment numbers.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hi mike,
1/ probability that you point out
probability is a general statistics, so it indicates an average, but cannot apply equally to individual.

2/ more than 1 will very likely be unemployed.
why more than 1, rather than 2.5, because Sharon's conservative, and further strengthen her claim , rather than citing only one set of statistic "1 out of 20..."

3/ thinking about why people are saying what they are saying.
before your explanation, I think simply that I need find a link R's view and S's view.
after your explanation, I think again and again why R states what he states and I am not sure whether I misunderstand again. appreciate if you point out. here is my thinking now.
R thinks the fact is alarming, based on the information that 90% people knowing that someone is unemployed -- the survey of the group is people in the country, and someone is not certainly be known each of the group people.
why R says that ? R thinks the fact is alarming. R thinks the high probability is very high , the high probability causing the alarm.

contrary, S's statement indicates that no need to worry about high probability -- high probability is a part of the statistic -- , and that eventually, depends on the number of respondent.

Did I get it?

have a nice day
>_~

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 30

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4569

Kudos [?]: 8988 [0], given: 113

Re: CR -- rapidly.correctly get the test points [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Nov 2016, 17:26
zoezhuyan wrote:
Hi mike,
1/ probability that you point out
probability is a general statistics, so it indicates an average, but cannot apply equally to individual.

2/ more than 1 will very likely be unemployed.
why more than 1, rather than 2.5, because Sharon's conservative, and further strengthen her claim , rather than citing only one set of statistic "1 out of 20..."

3/ thinking about why people are saying what they are saying.
before your explanation, I think simply that I need find a link R's view and S's view.
after your explanation, I think again and again why R states what he states and I am not sure whether I misunderstand again. appreciate if you point out. here is my thinking now.
R thinks the fact is alarming, based on the information that 90% people knowing that someone is unemployed -- the survey of the group is people in the country, and someone is not certainly be known each of the group people.
why R says that ? R thinks the fact is alarming. R thinks the high probability is very high , the high probability causing the alarm.

contrary, S's statement indicates that no need to worry about high probability -- high probability is a part of the statistic -- , and that eventually, depends on the number of respondent.

Did I get it?

have a nice day
>_~

Dear zoezhuyan,

My friend, how are you? I'm happy to respond.

1) Probability has many tricky points. Yes, the BIG idea about probability is that is makes true statements about averages over large numbers. It does not make 100% accurate predictions for macro scenarios.
Think about it this way. Suppose you have ten coins, each with a H side and T side. Suppose you shake them up, throw them in the air, and have them land on the ground. The probabilities are 50% H and 50% T, and this will be a more common result, but it certainly will not be the only possible result. On many individual throws, you might get 6 H and 4 T, or 3 H and 7 T. Every once in a while, you might get all 10 H or all 10 T. That would happen, about 1/1000 of the time. One instance of such a result is perfectly consistent with the overall 50%/50% probabilities. In fact, I actually would encourage you to spend some time tossing 10 coins and writing the results down to get a sense of the patterns.

Probabilities get even trickier with real human beings. It is a fact that citizens of China constitute 18.5% of the overall human population. That is, if we were to select one human on the planet, absolutely at random, there would be an 18.5% probability of picking Chinese citizen. (How we would pick one human on earth at random would be an immensely complicated and extremely expensive task, I am sure!) That's the overall "on Earth" probability. Now, suppose you walk out your door in Shanghai: you will see a much higher percentage than 18.5% of Chinese citizens. Suppose I walk out my door in Berkeley, California, USA: there are a few citizens of China here, as students or employees of companies, but these folks would constitute far less than 18.5% of people I see. That's an extreme example of a very unrealistic probability to use.

But, think about the probability in the question. As it happens, right now, at end of November 2016, the unemployment rate in the US is 4.9%. This doesn't mean 4.9 of the people I know are unemployed. Think about it. Of course, I know people at my job, but none of my fellow employees at Magoosh are unemployed. Most of my friends, like me, are intelligent folks with good educations, so these folks are likely to be in high demand at their jobs. Other than 1 or 2 people in transition, I don't really know anyone unemployed right now. In other areas of the country, where a large number of people in a community might be unemployed, it would be more likely to know people. Because people tend to associate with others at their own education level, of their own socioeconomic class, etc., these patterns in associating make the probabilities not follow the pattern they would if everything were random.

There are all kinds of subtleties with probabilities.

2) This is getting in very subtle ground. Making a "conservative" argument is a rhetorical approach. In a conservative argument, one makes an understated claim, a claim less than one might deserve to make. The reader will think, oh, that claim should be higher. Then the argument goes on to make its point anyway, and the reader is left impressed, thinking "wow, if the person making the argument had made the full claim, rather than the understated claim, that would have made the already-successful argument even stronger!" It is a subtle way to elicit an extra level of respect from the reader of the argument. This is a technique sometimes used by lawyers or by writers arguing a case.

An extreme case is known in rhetoric as litotes. That is a word/idea you do NOT need to know for the GMAT!

Suppose I am making an argument about something, and in the course of it, I make the understated claim "China has more than a few people." That's an extremely understated claim, because, as we know, China is the most populous nation on Earth. When I say my understated statement, many perceptive readers will think, "Mike could say more than that! He could make a stronger claim!" If I continue my argument and justify my conclusion to my reader's satisfaction, then the reader will be impressed. I didn't even have to use the full strength of the claims I had available to make my argument. It is a virtuoso verbal move designed to elicit extra respect for the strength and validity of an argument.

You do not need to follow such moves all the time, but simply be aware that such rhetorical concerns might be underlying a person's motivation if that person happens to understate a claim in an argument.

3) Yes, I believe you understand the points of the argument now.

Again, the best way to practice is to read lots of arguments in newspapers and news journals, all in English, to get a sense of why and how people argue in the real world.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Kudos [?]: 8988 [0], given: 113

Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 198

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 30

Re: CR -- rapidly.correctly get the test points [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Nov 2016, 22:22
mikemcgarry wrote:
zoezhuyan wrote:
Hi mike,
1/ probability that you point out
probability is a general statistics, so it indicates an average, but cannot apply equally to individual.

2/ more than 1 will very likely be unemployed.
why more than 1, rather than 2.5, because Sharon's conservative, and further strengthen her claim , rather than citing only one set of statistic "1 out of 20..."

3/ thinking about why people are saying what they are saying.
before your explanation, I think simply that I need find a link R's view and S's view.
after your explanation, I think again and again why R states what he states and I am not sure whether I misunderstand again. appreciate if you point out. here is my thinking now.
R thinks the fact is alarming, based on the information that 90% people knowing that someone is unemployed -- the survey of the group is people in the country, and someone is not certainly be known each of the group people.
why R says that ? R thinks the fact is alarming. R thinks the high probability is very high , the high probability causing the alarm.

contrary, S's statement indicates that no need to worry about high probability -- high probability is a part of the statistic -- , and that eventually, depends on the number of respondent.

Did I get it?

have a nice day
>_~

Dear zoezhuyan,

My friend, how are you? I'm happy to respond.

1) Probability has many tricky points. Yes, the BIG idea about probability is that is makes true statements about averages over large numbers. It does not make 100% accurate predictions for macro scenarios.
Think about it this way. Suppose you have ten coins, each with a H side and T side. Suppose you shake them up, throw them in the air, and have them land on the ground. The probabilities are 50% H and 50% T, and this will be a more common result, but it certainly will not be the only possible result. On many individual throws, you might get 6 H and 4 T, or 3 H and 7 T. Every once in a while, you might get all 10 H or all 10 T. That would happen, about 1/1000 of the time. One instance of such a result is perfectly consistent with the overall 50%/50% probabilities. In fact, I actually would encourage you to spend some time tossing 10 coins and writing the results down to get a sense of the patterns.

Probabilities get even trickier with real human beings. It is a fact that citizens of China constitute 18.5% of the overall human population. That is, if we were to select one human on the planet, absolutely at random, there would be an 18.5% probability of picking Chinese citizen. (How we would pick one human on earth at random would be an immensely complicated and extremely expensive task, I am sure!) That's the overall "on Earth" probability. Now, suppose you walk out your door in Shanghai: you will see a much higher percentage than 18.5% of Chinese citizens. Suppose I walk out my door in Berkeley, California, USA: there are a few citizens of China here, as students or employees of companies, but these folks would constitute far less than 18.5% of people I see. That's an extreme example of a very unrealistic probability to use.

But, think about the probability in the question. As it happens, right now, at end of November 2016, the unemployment rate in the US is 4.9%. This doesn't mean 4.9 of the people I know are unemployed. Think about it. Of course, I know people at my job, but none of my fellow employees at Magoosh are unemployed. Most of my friends, like me, are intelligent folks with good educations, so these folks are likely to be in high demand at their jobs. Other than 1 or 2 people in transition, I don't really know anyone unemployed right now. In other areas of the country, where a large number of people in a community might be unemployed, it would be more likely to know people. Because people tend to associate with others at their own education level, of their own socioeconomic class, etc., these patterns in associating make the probabilities not follow the pattern they would if everything were random.

There are all kinds of subtleties with probabilities.

2) This is getting in very subtle ground. Making a "conservative" argument is a rhetorical approach. In a conservative argument, one makes an understated claim, a claim less than one might deserve to make. The reader will think, oh, that claim should be higher. Then the argument goes on to make its point anyway, and the reader is left impressed, thinking "wow, if the person making the argument had made the full claim, rather than the understated claim, that would have made the already-successful argument even stronger!" It is a subtle way to elicit an extra level of respect from the reader of the argument. This is a technique sometimes used by lawyers or by writers arguing a case.

An extreme case is known in rhetoric as litotes. That is a word/idea you do NOT need to know for the GMAT!

Suppose I am making an argument about something, and in the course of it, I make the understated claim "China has more than a few people." That's an extremely understated claim, because, as we know, China is the most populous nation on Earth. When I say my understated statement, many perceptive readers will think, "Mike could say more than that! He could make a stronger claim!" If I continue my argument and justify my conclusion to my reader's satisfaction, then the reader will be impressed. I didn't even have to use the full strength of the claims I had available to make my argument. It is a virtuoso verbal move designed to elicit extra respect for the strength and validity of an argument.

You do not need to follow such moves all the time, but simply be aware that such rhetorical concerns might be underlying a person's motivation if that person happens to understate a claim in an argument.

3) Yes, I believe you understand the points of the argument now.

Again, the best way to practice is to read lots of arguments in newspapers and news journals, all in English, to get a sense of why and how people argue in the real world.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

have a nice day.
>_~

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 30

Re: CR -- rapidly.correctly get the test points   [#permalink] 29 Nov 2016, 22:22
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# CR -- rapidly.correctly get the test points

Moderator: mikemcgarry

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.