Veritas Prep CR Forum Expert - Karishma - Ask Me Anything about CR

Hello VeritasKarishma,

Hope not to ask a dumb question.
I'm preparing for the GMAT using both the "All the GMAT" by Manhattan and the CR bible by Powerscore. I found the latter very useful and I don't want to waste time covering overlapping methods and strategies on the "All the Verbal" for CR.
Can I directly skip this part on the Manhattan book or should I study some parts also there?

Thank you very much for your time

Posted from my mobile device

Hi VeritasKarishma

need your urgent support on 2 CR - LSAT- ASSUMPTION Questions on NEGATE technique
( negate of right answer is not WEAKENING the conclusion). I think I am doing something serious wrong.

https://gmatclub.com/forum/industrialis ... l#p2733802
https://gmatclub.com/forum/companies-th ... l#p2734272

Thanks a ton!

Hey mSKR,

Done.

First question:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/industrialis ... l#p2733802

Second question I have discussed in detail here:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/press-secret ... l#p1174052

Go through the thread and let me know if it clears the doubts.

Nik11:

From what I hear about the mentioned resources, CR Bible is a favourite among GMAT test takers and does discuss strategies and terminology in a lot of detail. Now whether all that detail is actually required for GMAT, I am not so sure. I cannot say anything about the Manhattan CR but I do know that Veritas CR covers the key points needed for GMAT very well without getting into unnecessary terminology!

I know this isn't exactly what you asked for but this is all I know on this topic!

2nd question i posted at wrong place before :
Here is the right link:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/press-secret ... l#p2735674

Doubt is : On negation , B and E seems to strengthen the conclusion and D seems to weaken the conclusion .


B) The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party.
>>
1. What is new about this information . We already know that 90% of projects canceled were in opposite parties
Negate B: The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party.
If most projects were wasteful in president party then it strengthens conclusion that his choice is motivated by budgetary policy that he even do cancel projects in his own district.

Soon basis of above 2 reasons, I rejected B


(D) The highway projects canceled in districts controlled by the President’s party were not generally more expensive than the projects canceled in districts controlled by opposition parties.
Negated D:The highway projects canceled in districts controlled by the President’s party were generally more expensive than the projects canceled in districts controlled by opposition parties.

So if his projects were expensive than projects of expensive , it means to some extend he is motivated politically else the projects would have been of similar cost. It may not be true but it tends to prove that his motive is politically and seems to favor claim of opposition parties


(E) Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessments of government projects.
Negate E: Reports by nonpartisan auditors are generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessments of government projects.
So they should believe the conclusion and it seems to favour the conclusion as in B.

What am I missing?

mSKR,

Yes I noticed. That is why I have given you the correct link. I have a long discussion on the question there. Go through it thoroughly. I have also responded to your doubt there.

I was really struggling with this question.
You are magician / Angel . I instantly understood what I was overlooking.

Thanks a ton!

Sure, no worries! You are always welcome mSKR!

VeritasKarishma Please can you clarify on this question i was unable to eliminate Option B and D both looks very attractive. That the application of new technology can increase the productivity of existing coal mines is demonstrated by the case of Tribnia's coal industry. Coal output per miner in Tribnia is double what it was five years ago, even though no new mines have opened.

Which of the following can be properly concluded from the statement about coal output per miner in the passage?


(A) If the number of miners working in Tribnian coal mines has remained constant in the past five years, Tribnia's total coal production has doubled in that period of time.

(B) Any individual Tribnian coal mine that achieved an increase in overall ouput in the past five years has also experienced an increase in output per miner.

(C) If any new coal mines had opened in Tribnia in the past five years, then the increase in output per miner would have been even greater than it actually was.

(D) If any individual Tribnian coal mine has not increased its output per miner in the past five years, then that mine's overall output has declined or remained constant.

(E) In Tribnia the cost of producing a given quantity of coal has declined over the past five years.

I found that B and D deals with Overall number . when we calculate overall, some elements in the group may have lower performance, some may higher or some may have constant.
There is no reason to conclude that If overall is higher , it means every member has higher. or If overall is lower, still some members may have higher output.
A) deals from members to overall. If everyone is increased then for sure overall is increased but reverse may not be true - if overall is higher then individual elements must have been higher.

Please explain on this question why E is not the answer but D?
It is theoretically possible that bacteria developed on Mars early in its history and that some were carried to Earth by a meteorite. However, strains of bacteria from different planets would probably have substantial differences in protein structure that would persist over time, and no two bacterial strains on Earth are different enough to have arisen on different planets. So, even if bacteria did arrive on Earth from Mars, they must have died out.

The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?

(A) It fails to establish whether bacteria actually developed on Mars
(B) it fails to establish how likely it is that Martian bacteria were transported to Earth
(C) It fails to consider whether there were means other than meteorites by which Martian bacteria could have been carried to Earth.
(D) It fails to consider whether all bacteria now on Earth could have arisen from transported Martian bacteria.
(E) It fails to consider whether there could have been strains of bacteria that originated on Earth and later died out.

Actually there has been lot of discussion in the link:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/it-is-theore ... 60-20.html

Answering your query, in summary,
argument talks about bacteria came from mars on earth and there has been no difference in stains of bacteria one Earth. So if even if bacteria came from Mars it would have been died out.

The first thought came in mind was: what if all bacteria on earth is from mars? because this point is not discussed in argument and it could be one possibility.

The question can be solved by POE
All options A , B and C have no impact on answering YES or NO
For D: If you ask a question : whether all bacteria now on Earth could have arisen from transported Martian bacteria?
Yes or No answer would have an impact on conclusion.
You can try:
Yes, bacteria on earth are actually Martian bacteria then conclusion is weakened
No, then conclusion is strengthened .
So that's why this option is more open to criticism as Yes or No make or break the conclusion.
For E: Out of scope again, my argument focus on bacteria that came from mars. I dnt care about bacteria that arise on earth.
if arise one Earth and later die out , Ok , it has no impact on bacteria that came from Mars
If no, ok then also no impact on bacteria that came from Mars.
We have no related information between these 2 type of bacteria.

Hope it is clear.

junii - Here you go:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/that-the-app ... l#p2742879

Hey junii,

Check here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/it-is-theore ... l#p2742887

Hi VeritasKarishma,

While reading Powerscore CR Bible (2017), I encountered the following note, which is an explanation for an 'identify conclusion/premise question' (P69/385 ebook). I wonder whether this is correct.

"Note: the “either…or”
construction can be tricky, and the GMAT definition is “at least one possibly
both.” Thus, unless stated otherwise, both events in an “either...or”
statement could occur. This tends to be different from how the phrase is
used in everyday language, however, and thus should be noted."

Thanks

Hey soudipsengupta

Yes, this is correct. 'Either A or B' means 'at least one of them'. It could be both too.

So
'Either she likes me or she likes her' means she does like at least one of us. She could like both of us too.

First of all, thank you for your sharing. This topic is definitely what I need.

In general, to solve WEAKEN/ STRENGTHEN questions, I pre-think the assumption behind the argument and look at the answers which one weakens/strengthens the argument.
This approach is quite good for "weaken". But I usually face a problem with "strengthen"; for example, I usually suppose the RIGHT ANSWER is out of scope.

Can you share the differences between"weaken" and "strengthen" strategies in CR?. Or at least what is your strategy to solve STRENGTHEN questions.
And what should you do while practicing to improve CR scores

Thank you for your help.