Verbal Question of the Day Chat Group

Critical Reasoning Butler: April 2024
April 12	CR 1	CR 2

­

@Bunuel
In CR2, option D says that the sales analyst argument doesn’t talk about the decrease in the number of varieties. But isn’t the word "corelation" itself imply increase/decrease in the number of varieties?
More specifically, the effect of increase/decrease of varieties on the sales.

Anyone else pls clarify this?

In this question, it is stated that G Bell sells 80%, whereas H Wells sells 50% of their mobile phones, and on the basis of this, it is claimed that G Bell is the leading seller of mobile phones.

Let’s say G Bell produces 100 phones, it sells 80 phones. Let’s say H Wells produces 200 phones, it sells 100 phones.

Although it sold 50% of phones, H Wells still has a greater number of items sold than G Bell.

So prethinking the flaw would be something related to the no of handsets that are produced and thus D is the clear winner

Hope this helps

Company spokesperson: The plan to include fewer varieties of meat in Brand X dog food is doomed to failure. It will certainly cause fewer consumers to buy Brand X dog food.

Sales analyst: Actually, marketing studies show that there is no correlation between the number of varieties of meat in a dog food and sales of that dog food.

Which of the following is the most serious criticism of the sales analyst’s argument?

(A) The sales analyst does not refer to any specific statistics.

(B) The sales analyst does not specifically refer to Brand X dog food.

(C) The sales analyst’s argument is based on outmoded ideas of causality.

(D) The sales analyst refers to how many varieties of meat are in a dog food rather than to the decrease in the number of varieties of meat in the dog food.
(E) The sales analyst presents her evidence in a manner designed to disprove any relationship between ingredients and dog food sales.


This is the question

This would also have similar reasoning related to numbers as given the discussion

Please

Bell Corporation, a manufacturer of mobile handsets, has claimed to have become the leading seller of mobile handsets, <<<<in terms of units sold, in the country>>>>. According to latest figures released by all the handset manufacturers in the country, G. Bell Corporation managed to sell 80 per cent of the total handsets that it manufactured during the year whereas the market leader, H. Wells Corporation, managed to sell only 50 per cent of its total handsets.

Does this terms not reject option D
Has claimed to have become the leading seller of mobile handsets in term of units sold

If true, means his 80% sold is greater than the 50% sold by H Well

What’s the correct answer here ? I think it should be C or D

The question is about flaw here right...so if true it suffices else it breaks

Hi
Can anyone please help me with the following doubt ->
I just started preparing 2 weeks ago using e-gmat’s subscribed course. I have a question regarding CR practice. Currently I am spending 8 - 12 mins in solving the 650-720 level questions (level stated by e-gmat in their practice files). Although I got 8/9 correct, but the timing seems like a serious issue to me. Should I be worried at this stage?

Saima am new and want to start study from beginning could you please help me

Im not a pro , just started my prep as well. But 8-12 mins per questions of CR u mean ?

Well. In actual GMAT . U get around 2 min max for each questions . So decide yourself. Better to judge which questions u can do or guess the answer mark and get rid of , if its there to just waste the time.

please explain this question. IT’S AN OFFICIAL QUESTION

I guess this is a very new question. Don’t see anything on the thread. That said, here are my quick 2-cents:
- Claim: The data of the last 50 years is proof that it is unlikely that the cost of treating any particular disease will reduce just because of med technological improvements
- Logic: Because… while med tech has improved tremendously, annual overall spending on disease treatment has not reduced, it has also risen sharply
- One flaw I can think of: The cost of treating any particular disease may really have come down. But because of more number of patients, the annual overall spend increased rather than decreased. There are more such.
- Question: Flaw EXCEPT. Find the one thing which, even if it possibly changes, does not make the argument vulnerable.
- Choice A: if the average age changes, say increases, more elders could mean more patients than before – as an example. Then, even if the technology is better, the overall spend on disease treatment could still increase. Average age could tangibly matter here.
- Choice B: Due to inflation, the same treatment costs more. A treatment that cost 1L Rs may now cost 3L Rs. Thus, despite the technology getting better, the overall spend on disease treatment could still increase.
- Choice C: Greater size of population could straight-up mean more patients. Thus, despite the technology getting better, the overall spend on disease treatment could still increase.
- Choice D: Irrespective of number of medical researchers, we already know that med tech has improved tremendously. What difference does it make whether this improvement came from an unchanged number of medical researchers, or whether this number presumably increased? This choice seems to be the best candidate.
- Choice E: A change in type of disease can clearly impact the overall spend on disease treatment. For instance, despite med tech improvement, a huge chunk of expenses are getting incurred now due to a greater contribution of expensive diseases in the population (say, lot more dialysis or cancer cases). Then, even if the technology is better, the overall spend on disease treatment could still increase
- Choice D looks like the best candidate.

Hope this helps!

How much time should one take to solve a question like this one?

I believe the answer is D.

Correct. Can you please tell me the time that it took you to solve this one?