How to Get CR Weaken Right Every Time

Question

https://gmatclub.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/fresh-1D.png   How to Get CR Weaken Right Every Time

Each Critical Reasoning question type requires a certain type of reasoning to answer; if we master each one, then it’s going to be a lot tougher for them to trick us. There are also patterns to the argument structures, wrong answers, everything – this is a standardized test, after all.

So let’s take a look one particular (and particularly challenging) GMATPrep Critical Reasoning question and use it as a template for what to do with all CRs of the same type.

First, set your timer for 2 minutes and try the problem!

“Twelve years ago and again five years ago, there were extended periods when the Darfir Republic’s currency, the pundra, was weak: its value was unusually low relative to the world’s most stable currencies. Both times a weak pundra made Darfir’s manufactured products a bargain on world markets, and Darfir’s exports were up substantially. Now some politicians are saying that, in order to cause another similarly sized increase in exports, the government should allow the pundra to become weak again.

Which of the following, if true, provides the government with the strongest grounds to doubt that the politicians’ recommendation, if followed, will achieve its aim?"

A) Several of the politicians now recommending that the pundra be allowed to become weak made that same recommendation before each of the last two periods of currency weakness.

B) After several decades of operating well below peak capacity, Darfir’s manufacturing sector is now operating at near-peak levels.

C) The economy of a country experiencing a rise in exports will become healthier only if the country’s currency is strong or the rise in exports is significant.

D) Those countries whose manufactured products compete with Darfir’s on the world market all currently have stable currencies.

E) A sharp improvement in the efficiency of Darfir’s manufacturing plants would make Darfir’s products a bargain on world markets even without any weakening of the pundra relative to other currencies.”

Okay, now that you’ve got an answer, let’s use our 4-step CR process.

Step 1: Identify the Question 
First, we read the question stem:
“Which of the following, if true, provides the government with the strongest grounds to doubt that the politicians’ recommendation, if followed, will achieve its aim?”

The words “if true” and “strongest grounds to doubt that the recommendation will (work)” indicate that this is a Weaken the Conclusion question.

The question stem also tells us more. Apparently, some politicians make a recommendation in the argument, so we need to keep an eye out for that. Further, we’re asked specifically to weaken whatever this recommendation is – essentially, we can think of the recommendation as the conclusion.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument 
The argument begins by telling us some facts: 12 years ago and 5 years ago, the pundra was weak and had a very low value relative to other countries’ currencies. This caused D’s products to be a big bargain for other countries, so exports rose a lot.

In the last sentence, the politicians say that if the government lets the pundra get weak again, then exports will be boosted to a similar level.

Your notes might look something like this (though there are lots of ways to write notes!):

12ya and 5ya, pun weak; v. val  prods brgn so exps 
Ps: let pun get weak   exp like b4

The last part is the conclusion – it tells us what the politicians recommend and what they predict will happen as a result. We need to weaken that conclusion. The first thing we should think is: well, just because something happened a certain way before doesn’t mean it’ll happen that way again. The politicians are assuming everything will be exactly the same as before.

What would need to happen in order for the plan to work the way the politicians say? First, the government has to be able to let the pundra get weak on purpose – and the pundra would have to get weak enough to trigger an “unusually low” value relative to other currencies. If the situation were to trigger much larger demand for the products, then the companies would also have to be able to make more of the products in order to satisfy that increased demand.

There may also be some other thing we haven’t thought of yet that could have been one way 12 years and 5 years ago but different today. Whatever the specifics, though, the correct answer should highlight some difference between the two previous periods and today and that difference should weaken the plan.

Step 3: State the Goal 
On Weaken questions, the correct answer only has to make it somewhat less likely that the conclusion is valid. The correct answer does not have to completely invalidate the conclusion.

The most common trap answers will do the opposite of what we want: strengthening rather than weakening.

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) "Several of the politicians now recommending that the pundra be allowed to become weak made that same recommendation before each of the last two periods of currency weakness.”
Wow. Maybe their ability to make these predictions helped to get them elected! If anything, I’d have to say this somewhat strengthens the politicians’ recommendation – if they were right the last two times, then maybe they’re right this time too. Eliminate A.

(B) "After several decades of operating well below peak capacity, Darfir’s manufacturing sector is now operating at near-peak levels.”
So that means that they’re already making almost as much as they can today. In addition, 12 years and 5 years ago, they were not making anywhere near as much as they could. That’s a change from the last two times when exports went up a lot. Does that change actually matter? If they can only make a little more product, will they be able to fill the demand if it goes up a lot? This one’s looking like it could weaken the situation. Leave B in.

(C) "The economy of a country experiencing a rise in exports will become healthier only if the country’s currency is strong or the rise in exports is significant.
The economy… will become healthier…” That certainly sounds like a good goal. Is that what the argument says, though? No, the plan is more specific: to increase exports. This choice does mention something about a rise in exports, though, and the wording’s a little confusing, so I’m not going to think about it right now. I’m going to leave it in for now and go look at D and E.

(D) "Those countries whose manufactured products compete with Darfir’s on the world market all currently have stable currencies.”
Hmm. Is the issue whether other countries have stable currencies? Do we know about those other countries during the previous 2 periods (12 years ago and 5 years ago)? No – not from the argument and not from this choice. This doesn’t do anything to the conclusion at all – neither weakens nor strengthens. Eliminate D.

(E) "A sharp improvement in the efficiency of Darfir’s manufacturing plants would make Darfir’s products a bargain on world markets even without any weakening of the pundra relative to other currencies.”

This might be true; perhaps this is a better plan overall... but they didn't ask me to find a better plan. They asked me to weaken the given conclusion. Does it address the stated conclusion, which is to increase exports specifically by weakening the currency? No. Eliminate E.

Okay, I’ve narrowed it down to B and C. If you thought B was a weaken and you weren’t sure about C, then you can just pick B – if it does weaken, then it fulfills the requirements of the question. If you want to examine C further, though, try diagramming it.

The answer choice is in the form: X will occur ONLY IF Y is true OR Z is true. Economy will become healthier only if either currency is strong or there’s a large rise in exports.

Let’s see. In normal language that means (1) if the currency is strong, then the economy will be healthy OR (2) if there’s a big rise in exports, then the economy will be healthy.

The first half certainly doesn’t apply here; we want to make the currency weak. The second says that IF exports go up a lot, THEN the economy will be healthy. Does this have any bearing on whether making the currency weak will cause the exports to rise? No; this situation would occur only after the exports have already risen. Eliminate C.

The correct answer is B.

Key Takeaways for Solving Weaken CR Problems: 
 (1) Know how to recognize this type. Weaken questions will typically ask us to find something that “weakens,” “undermines,” or “casts doubt” on something. The question type will also include “if true” language (or a synonym).

(2) Know what to do with Weaken questions! We should take note of any assumptions we can brainstorm while deconstructing the argument. Also, we’re looking for an answer that makes the conclusion at least a little less valid or a little less likely to be true – but the answer does not have to completely destroy the conclusion.

(3) Watch out for traps! The most common wrong answer trap on a Weaken question is an answer that strengthens instead. Another common trap is confusing argument wording that causes us to pick out the wrong conclusion or to reverse the conclusion. For instance, in this problem, the conclusion is not that the plan will not work. The conclusion is the politicians’ recommendation (and they clearly think their plan will work).

* GMATPrep* question courtesy of the Graduate Management Admissions Council. Usage of this question does not imply endorsement by GMAC.

DmitryFarberMPrep · Accepted Answer

This is actually not a causal argument. The argument simply grants that the weakened currency was the cause before. The issue now is not about cause, but whether a move to weaken currency would strengthen imports at this time. This is a plan argument, so to weaken it, we need to find something that will   prevent   the plan from having the desired effect, not something else that would cause the same effect.

Imagine that I said "Last time I wanted to learn a language, I spent time in a country where it was spoken. I want to learn Japanese now, so I should move to Japan." Could you weaken the argument by saying "You could learn Japanese by hiring a tutor and not moving"? No! Without any additional information on why this method would be preferable to the other, I have no reason to change my plan. Note that it would be different if you pointed out some  benefit  of your plan, such as reduced cost or increased efficiency.

In the case of answer E, we have the same problem. Would this increase be easier to achieve? Is it even possible? And if it is possible, do we have reason to believe that it's a better way to reach the goal? If the answer had said that this increase was *already happening* and thus rendered a weakening of the currency unnecessary, that would be another story.

As for B, the idea is that if the manufacturing sector is operating at peak levels, then the country may not be able to meet any additional demand for exports. We're even told that this was *not* the case before, so we have a key difference. B does not imply that the plan is going well, because the plan hasn't happened yet!

So, a word of caution here: watch out for whether the events under discussion are past events, current events, or (hypothetical) future events! B would be a strengthen if the plan had already been enacted, but since the plan hasn't been enacted yet, it's a weaken. Similarly, E would be a weaken if the efficiency were already increasing, but since this is just a hypothetical ("If X happened, Y would be the result"), it's of no use to us.

souvik101990 · Answer

Whoa whoa whoa
This is actually great
+1

bscharm · Answer

This is a great explanation. I logically chose E because it is an alternate solution, as opposed to the answer which weakens the argument. The reasoning you gave makes it perfectly clear why it should be B. Thanks!

OldFritz · Answer

Bold claim :-)

geno5 · Answer

The correct answer is B. As Mark states, C is irrelevant because it states IF this happens, which does not help weaken the argument. Make sure you understand the reasoning! Hopefully you just typed the wrong letter.

talismaaniac · Answer

Hi Mark ... great explanation. But I could not get why B is correct. While going through the question, I did not think that there is any option that could actually weaken the pol's recommendation. I am writing my understanding. Please guide me if you see any flaw.

Premise 1 - 12 & 5 years ago, the pundra was weak (I guess extensive period means a good amount of time during the aforesaid 2 years).
Premise 2 - Other currencies were a lot higher.
Result of 2 premises - weak pundra made Darfir's products cheaper globally and hence exports of such products increased.
Conclusion (by pols) - govt shall make pundra weak again and exports will increase by the same magnitude.

Now, A strengthens. D strengthens, E is irrelevant because we have to weaken the conclusion rather than look for an alternative.
C talks about economy but we are concerned about exports.
Finally, B says that the production is at near-peak level now, while 12 & 5 yrs ago, it was well below peak.

Where I got it wrong....
So what. Even though the prod is at peak (say), it can still export abroad the already manufactured goods, instead of selling them in the country. And who says that the products are actually getting sold. Even though the optimum cap has been achieved, the option does not talk about sale. Probably the product might not be getting sold locally, or, even if it is, why cannot they export?
I thought this actually strengthened because more the production, more the exports. For eg. say the optimum cap is 10000. 12 yrs ago, it produced 5000, 5 yrs ago 6000. Now, in this year, the prod is 9500.
This means that while Darfir could export only 5000 or 6000 earlier, now it can export 9500. Hence, weak currency will definitely help. The country has more to export. Hence, strengthen.

rohantiwari · Answer

Hi Mark,

Please help me understand issues in the following line of reasoning regarding option B:-

Reasoning  --> Goal is to increase exports. Just making the products doesnt mean that Darfir will be able to sell them.
To increase export we need both luctrative products (so that they get sold) and enough supply of those products to meet international demand

Option B  states that manufacturing plants are running near full capacity - this might also be interpreted to say - Darfir has enough goods to sell in international markets (since plants are running near full capacity)

Conclusion  --> Since Darfir now has enough products to sell, its even more a reason to depreciate currency so that products become lucrative in international market and are sold easily leading to increased exports.
Hence this choice might strenthen the reasoning that currency should be depreciated!!

Thnx in advance!!

MysticRefugee · Answer

Option B says that the plants are operating at full capacity which means they have enough goods to sell. You don't have to depreciate your currency and force a sale. Factories operate at near full capacity when there's demand (this is an inherent assumption).

crashkeeper · Answer

That's why GMAT is full of different assumptions and interpretations. Questions should be totally clear. For me this one is not.

Here what is needed is a way to oppose the idea that currency depreciation wont increase sales abroad, otherwise currency woudnt be a problem. Nothing is said about were the products could be shipped. They have the factory at full capacity, they have products and they can start to sell abroad if the market is competitive. Hence they can stop selling in other places. People is right to think that this could support the politicians.
In other hand this would be a good explanation for justifying that this option was incorrect if another better than this was available. Ok, it could be the difficulty of this kind of questions, but the options should be clear and not so ambiguous.

LTN99 · Answer

Thanks for the in-depth explanation Mark.

I was confused between B and E, but the idea that I have to weaken an existing argument and not present an alternative plan to the argument is absolutely spot on.

Are you aware of any similar questions?

bolasao · Answer

Hi,
This kind of question is has a cause effect realtionship: if the country weakens the currency-> exports will increase. I thought that one of the possibilities to weaken this kind of questions is to find an alternative cause that will lead to the same effect.

Hence, I think that answer E (A sharp improvement in the efficiency of Darfir’s manufacturing plants would make Darfir’s products a bargain on world markets even without any weakening of the pundra relative to other currencies) provides an alternitve cause to reach the same effect ("increase exports"). Where I am wrong?

Answer B (After several decades of operating well below peak capacity, Darfir’s manufacturing sector is now operating at near-peak levels) streghtens the argument, because if they are doing great now, it is an input that the goverment plan works out?

Thank youu

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

agrasan · Answer

Thanks  DmitryFarber  for this detailed response.

I am a bit confused if the  plan has already been enacted  i.e.,   the government has allowed the Pundra to become weak again.

In this case, how option B would have been a strengthener? My reasoning is near peak production level would have decreased my confidence that exports will rise. Please let me know what I am missing here. It's a hypothetical question but good for my learning.

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

I think we're seeing the same thing from two different directions. My point was that if we were trying to assess the success of a plan to increase exports by weakening the currency, B might be a good sign of success. We might see the current peak production as evidence that the action were working to increase exports. True, they might not go up MORE from that point, but they might be higher than they were before, so it could show that the plan was working. But given that the plan is not yet in place, B makes us wonder whether there is any scope to increase exports from here.

How to Get CR Weaken Right Every Time

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

How to Get CR Weaken Right Every Time

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards