Neurons in the brain form cohesive decision groups by joining thro

All right, kntombat, I will bite. You know I do not like to shy away from taking a closer look at a question, even if that question may not be from a reliable source or may be of questionable quality. Remember, the goal when taking on any Verbal question is not to choose the only answer that can be justified, but to select the best answer of the five presented. This question asks us to draw our own conclusion based on the information presented in the passage. So, just what is that information?


Sentence one provides background information on the neuronal underpinnings of any decision-making process.

Sentence two outlines a balance that must be struck among the number of neurons that group together—an optimal number—for any decision to be properly made.

Sentence three presents a problem with neuron saturation: the mind may wander.

Sentence four presents the counterpart to the previous sentence, indicating that too few neurons clustering may hinder the proper decision-making process.

There are a lot of absolutes in the passage—any, must be optimal, required, needed—and yet there are also some instances of softer language in may. Such a mixture of language, with judgmental words such as properly peppered in, may leave the passage more open to interpretation, and following what I like to call the linear logic of the passage may prove more challenging. Anyway, how about we see what the answer choices have in store?

On first pass, this one meets a yellow-light standard. There are a few questionable elements to sort out later, but nothing leaps out at me as being egregious. The passage discusses neuronal grouping in order for a decision, any decision, to be made. It seems overreaching, perhaps, to make a judgment call as to the quality of a decision—optimal does appear in the passage, but in the context of how the neurons must group together for, again, any decision to be properly made. Also, why can we conclude that it is highly unlikely that the brain will be capable of making an optimal decision once it has started down a tangential path? If you recall, line three is one that uses cautious language: the mind may start to wander is not the same as saying that the mind will start to wander. This answer choice looks okay for now, but I want to keep searching.

Okay, this one is much easier to assess. There is no evidence in the passage whatsoever to support such mathematical certainty. For all we know, the optimal number of neurons that come together for a proper decision to be made is far lower than the total number of neurons available, and even an aging brain could muster up enough neurons for the decision-making process. Red light.

Comparing the language of (A) and (C), you can appreciate why I would disfavor this answer choice. We are again getting into interpretive territory in assessing the quality of decisions, but whereas (A) softens the conclusion with unlikely, this option tells us with certainty that poor decisions are caused by something or another, and the passage never asserts that an excess or inadequacy of neurons will cause poor decisions. The last two lines of the passage clearly adopt a may framework instead, making this answer choice easier than (A) to argue against. Red light.

We seem not be able to escape this quality-of-decision conclusion. The beginning of the answer looks somewhat promising, but, as we saw in (C), the definitive are gives me cause for concern here. Moreover, the passage provides no insight into the frequency with which the optimal alignment or grouping of neurons may lead to proper decisions, just that such an optimal arrangement must be reached. Finally, we are dealing with the same optimal we saw in (A). In sum, all three words at the end of this answer choice are debatable, while highly in (A) is the only unmatched questionable element. We could yellow-light this on first pass, although I still favor the earlier answer.

Like (B), this provides an easy elimination. There is no evidence in the passage that having too many or too few neurons in the decision-making process is any better or worse than the other. All we can say is that either condition is suboptimal, compared to having just the right number of neurons. Red light.

Between (A) and (D), the former has a slight edge, in my mind, for its use of cautious language. I am guessing that whoever created the question was going for something along such lines, with the intention of pointing out that assertive language is more readily debated or disproved. I just think that this same person conflated an optimal number of neurons (to make any decision) with an optimal number of neurons to make an optimal decision. In short, I would say right idea, wrong execution. I am certain the question would not appear as is on the GMAT™, but it provides a learning opportunity, nonetheless. (I spent a little under a minute and a half before I settled on (A) over (D), and I feel as though the time was not wasted, even if I am glad I did not invest much more of it.)

I hope that helps. You wanted my input, so there you have it. Thank you for thinking to ask me about the question.

- Andrew