Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
13 Jan 2011, 15:32
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
(N/A)
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
0%
(00:00)
wrong
based on 0
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
I agree that these kinds of tricks do not appear on medium-level questions. In fact, most low- to medium-level questions can be answered with "common sense" by native English speakers with a pretty good degree of accuracy; as you point out, for non-native speakers, improving efficiency and clarity in reading is key, and being able to summarize the argument is key, too.
However, the challenge of the GMAT is that, as you get better, so do the questions, SO even those who are not shooting for 700+ will see trickier questions on test day, questions which belie the common-sense approach and lead us into traps such as the above you mentioned. Here's the overall idea I'd keep in mind, that works on easier AND harder questions alike:
The GMAT is always asking about the Argument in A/S/W/F questions, NOT about the Conclusion. On easier questions, the right answer in, say, a Weakener question will simply be something that means "The conclusion is wrong" or "The prediction will not come true" or something. However, as questions get harder, this approach doesn't work, because just to argue that the Conclusion or Evidence is false doesn't really Weaken the Argument. To Weaken the Argument, pretend that the conclusion is always actually this sentence:
"The evidence I've given here is sufficient, all on its own, to prove my point."
Every author is really saying this, and it's THIS sentence that we have to weaken/strengthen on the GMAT. If we're always focused on this idea instead of on arguing for/against the Conclusion, we can develop a consistent approach that works on all difficulty levels.
Furthermore, I'm personally less about identifying trap answers and more about learning how to prephrase right answers. Yes, common traps are nice to know, but the best test-takers aren't tempted by them because they predict and find the Right Answer quickly through a solid understanding of what the GMAT is looking for in CR, as well as in RC (and, of course, in all Quant questions).
However, the challenge of the GMAT is that, as you get better, so do the questions, SO even those who are not shooting for 700+ will see trickier questions on test day, questions which belie the common-sense approach and lead us into traps such as the above you mentioned. Here's the overall idea I'd keep in mind, that works on easier AND harder questions alike:
The GMAT is always asking about the Argument in A/S/W/F questions, NOT about the Conclusion. On easier questions, the right answer in, say, a Weakener question will simply be something that means "The conclusion is wrong" or "The prediction will not come true" or something. However, as questions get harder, this approach doesn't work, because just to argue that the Conclusion or Evidence is false doesn't really Weaken the Argument. To Weaken the Argument, pretend that the conclusion is always actually this sentence:
"The evidence I've given here is sufficient, all on its own, to prove my point."
Every author is really saying this, and it's THIS sentence that we have to weaken/strengthen on the GMAT. If we're always focused on this idea instead of on arguing for/against the Conclusion, we can develop a consistent approach that works on all difficulty levels.
Furthermore, I'm personally less about identifying trap answers and more about learning how to prephrase right answers. Yes, common traps are nice to know, but the best test-takers aren't tempted by them because they predict and find the Right Answer quickly through a solid understanding of what the GMAT is looking for in CR, as well as in RC (and, of course, in all Quant questions).
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 Critical Reasoning (CR) 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!
14 Jan 2011, 00:10
Kudos
Bookmarks
AdamKnewton
So if we pretend that the conclusion is "The evidence I've given here is sufficient, all on its own, to prove my point."
We have to look for an option that says that the evidence is not sufficient for a weaken question
And a Strengthen question, an option that says that the evidence is not sufficient to reach the Main Point
But what technique should we use for an Assumption Question ?
14 Jan 2011, 00:52
Kudos
Bookmarks
An Assumption will say "The evidence given IS relevant to the conclusion [not necessarily sufficient, actually, but it will tend in that direction]."
A Strengthener will say "The evidence given is probably more relevant to the conclusion than it was in the original argument [but it doesn't always prove the argument totally solid]."
A Weakener will say "The evidence given is more or less irrelevant and doesn't prove what the author thinks it proves [but it's still possible the conclusion is valid for some unknown reason; really we just can't know from the given evidence]."
Sorry those sentences aren't the simplest-worded, but, if it were simple, it wouldn't be the GMAT
A Strengthener will say "The evidence given is probably more relevant to the conclusion than it was in the original argument [but it doesn't always prove the argument totally solid]."
A Weakener will say "The evidence given is more or less irrelevant and doesn't prove what the author thinks it proves [but it's still possible the conclusion is valid for some unknown reason; really we just can't know from the given evidence]."
Sorry those sentences aren't the simplest-worded, but, if it were simple, it wouldn't be the GMAT
