Last visit was: 23 Apr 2026, 16:00

It is currently 23 Apr 2026, 16:00

Toolkit

Practice Tests

Critical Reasoning (CR)

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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Go to My Error Log Learn more

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Apr 23
Free full-length test!
08:00 PM PDT
-
09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 23
A Non-Native’s Journey to GMAT 695 with V88 (99th percentile)
01:30 AM EDT
-
02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 25
From ‘GMAT Is Not for Me’ to a 695— Beating Her Target by 50 Points
12:30 AM EDT
-
01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 26
Score High on the GMAT with Target Test Prep
10:00 AM EDT
-
11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 27
Try OnDemand GMAT Masterclass
11:00 AM EDT
-
12:00 PM EDT
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
Apr 28
Join - GMAT Day!
08:00 AM PDT
-
11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.

Back to Forum

Create Topic

12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition 2025 - Day 9: To improve

1 2 3

geocircle

Joined: 14 Dec 2025

Last visit: 27 Dec 2025

Posts: 90

Own Kudos:

[1]

Posts: 90

Kudos: 87

[1]

26 Dec 2025, 07:28

Kudos

Bookmarks

A It does not directly test whether the format itself caused higher scores. Even if teachers were experienced, the improvement might still be due to other factors.

B This could hint at a general improvement tendency, but it does not directly compare science outcomes between schools using different teaching methods.

C It focuses on what might have influenced results, not on comparative outcomes.

D This addresses student attitudes and long-term interest. It does not evaluate the district's academic conclusion.

E Right answer. If lecture-based schools also improved by a similar amount, the increase may be due to broader factors. If they did not improve, that strengthens the claim that the lab-based format caused the gains.

Answer E

Pratyaksh1907

Joined: 17 Nov 2024

Last visit: 23 Apr 2026

Posts: 35

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 38

Products:

Posts: 35

Kudos: 11

[1]

26 Dec 2025, 07:38

Kudos

Bookmarks

The whole argument is specifically discussing about Science classes. Therefore, please refrain from assuming possibilities in any other subjects.

Bunuel

To improve learning outcomes in high school science classes, one district replaced traditional lectures with hands-on lab activities. After one academic year, standardized science test scores in these schools rose by an average of 12 percent. Based on this outcome, the district concluded that the lab-based format is a more effective method of teaching science and has decided to implement it across all schools in the district.

Which of the following would be most useful to know in evaluating the conclusion drawn by the district?

A. Whether the teachers who implemented the lab-based format had prior experience conducting hands-on science instruction.

B. Whether students in schools that adopted the new format also showed improvement in subjects that were still taught through lectures.

C. Whether any other changes to curriculum, scheduling, or student population occurred in the schools that adopted the new teaching format.

D. Whether students who performed better under the new format reported higher levels of interest in pursuing science careers.

E. Whether schools that maintained the traditional lecture-based format showed similar improvements in test scores over the same time period.

Gift

12 Days of Christmas Competition

This question is part of our holiday event

Win $40,000 in prizes: courses, tests, and more

A. Regardless of teachers experience, we need information about the lab based method.
B. Improvement in other subjects will not evaluate our point of concern.
C. Assuming that other changes might affect the lab based teaching, is a false assumption. So, don't fall for this trap.
D. Completely irrelevant.
E. Perfect. If the answer is YES, then the conclusion false apart. If NO, then the conclusion stay strong. Therefore, this is the answer

bhanu29

Joined: 02 Oct 2024

Last visit: 22 Apr 2026

Posts: 358

Own Kudos:

270

[1]

Given Kudos: 263

Location: India

Schools: Anderson '27 Booth '27 Foster '27 Haas '27 Kellogg '27 Kellogg Mashall '27 McCombs '27 Ross '27 Scheller '27 Tepper '27 Yale '27 Sloan (MIT) Stanford '27

GMAT Focus 1: 675 Q87 V85 DI79 Verified score

GMAT Focus 2: 715 Q87 V84 DI86 Verified score

GPA: 9.11

WE:Engineering (Technology)

Products:

Schools: Anderson '27 Booth '27 Foster '27 Haas '27 Kellogg '27 Kellogg Mashall '27 McCombs '27 Ross '27 Scheller '27 Tepper '27 Yale '27 Sloan (MIT) Stanford '27

GMAT Focus 2: 715 Q87 V84 DI86 Verified score

Posts: 358

Kudos: 270

[1]

26 Dec 2025, 07:46

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

Gift

12 Days of Christmas Competition

This question is part of our holiday event

Win $40,000 in prizes: courses, tests, and more

Eval statement should strengthen/weaken, logical negation should do opposite.
A. Whether the teachers who implemented the lab-based format had prior experience conducting hands-on science instruction.
Doesn't strengthen/weaken even if true. Eliminate.
B. Whether students in schools that adopted the new format also showed improvement in subjects that were still taught through lectures.
Doesn't strengthen/weaken even if true. Scope is on science. Eliminate.
C. Whether any other changes to curriculum, scheduling, or student population occurred in the schools that adopted the new teaching format.
This might seam like weakener but still new teaching format drove the change. Eliminate.
D. Whether students who performed better under the new format reported higher levels of interest in pursuing science careers.
Doesn't matter, average still improved. Eliminate.
E. Whether schools that maintained the traditional lecture-based format showed similar improvements in test scores over the same time period.
This weakens by giving breaking causal link, as even in absence of cause effect is there. Logical negation strengthens it. Keep

Correct Answer E

topgmat25

Joined: 15 Dec 2025

Last visit: 05 Jan 2026

Posts: 90

Own Kudos:

[1]

Posts: 90

Kudos: 87

[1]

26 Dec 2025, 07:48

Kudos

Bookmarks

A If they had experience, maybe that's why it worked, but still doesn't rule out other causes.

B It would suggest a general school-wide improvement component. Tempting, but not the best one.

C This addresses potential alternative causes directly. If other changes happened at the same time, could confuse the results. Tempting, but not the best one.

D It's irrelevant to whether lab format caused the score increase.

E This directly tests if labs caused improvement beyond normal yearly gains or external factors. Correct answer.

The answer is E

gemministorm

Joined: 26 May 2025

Last visit: 22 Apr 2026

Posts: 143

Own Kudos:

110

[1]

Given Kudos: 57

GMAT Focus 1: 565 Q82 V79 DI73 Verified score

GMAT Focus 2: 605 Q84 V83 DI73 Verified score

Posts: 143

Kudos: 110

[1]

26 Dec 2025, 08:04

Kudos

Bookmarks

In evaluating plan new vs traditional was new improved 12%?
A - experience could influence but does not say about new lab format was more or less effective
B - could be but improvement to what extent ?
C - so along with new teaching format some other changes happened but that's fine... what we want is how traditional vs new worked.
D - inference not needed for our plan
E - yes required -> similar improvement on similar timelines.
hence E

firefox300

Joined: 15 Dec 2025

Last visit: 27 Dec 2025

Posts: 90

Own Kudos:

[1]

Posts: 90

Kudos: 87

[1]

26 Dec 2025, 08:09

Kudos

Bookmarks

A Teachers' experience might influence the effectiveness of the format. But it doesn't challenge or support that the lab format is more effective compared to lectures.

B It might suggest that the overall change rather than the lab-based format specifically could explain the improvement. It's useful in evaluating the conclusion, but E is better.

C It's relevant because it identifies correlation and maybe causality, but E is a better option.

D Careers interest is a future outcome, not relevant.

E CORRECT. It directly compares the performance of the lab-based format schools with those that maintained the traditional format.

The correct answer is E

obedear

Joined: 05 Sep 2024

Last visit: 23 Apr 2026

Posts: 61

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 11

Products:

Posts: 61

Kudos: 39

[1]

26 Dec 2025, 08:18

Kudos

Bookmarks

I selected E.

The stated argument is that this new lab-based format is a more effective way of teaching science than traditional lectures. We are looking for evidence which, if evaluated, would allow us to support or disregard the argument more clearly.

A - This would be somewhat useful to know - perhaps if the lab-based format was taught by teachers with little or no experience the learning outcomes would not be as high and less effective; let's keep going though.

B - Whether students improved in other lectures is not the focus of the topic of discussion, we are interested specifically in science.

C - I could see this being somewhat useful to know because it introduces potential alternative factors which could affect how effective the new teachign method is, however, all of these factors would exist in conjunction with the new teaching format, so we would be unable to separate the teaching format from those factors alone, so it is not as useful.

D - Not quite relevant to what we are looking for.

E - If similar improvements in test scores were also seen within the schools with the traditional learning based format, that would suggest there is an alternative factor which is causing the test scores to be increased which is independent of the learning method itself. best answer.

D -

sanjitscorps18

Joined: 26 Jan 2019

Last visit: 03 Mar 2026

Posts: 723

Own Kudos:

741

[1]

Given Kudos: 130

Location: India

Schools: IMD'26

Products:

Schools: IMD'26

Posts: 723

Kudos: 741

[1]

26 Dec 2025, 08:24

Kudos

Bookmarks

A -> The premise won't change even if the teachers had prior experience.
B -> This would not give any further judgement into the question about the new format
C -> Even if these changes happened there must be some part attributable to the new format. But this was close
D -> No help in evaluating the new format basis this option
E -> This is helpful as this directly compares the new format with the traditional lectures and a valid comparison can be made between the two methods.

Option E

Bunuel

Gift

12 Days of Christmas Competition

This question is part of our holiday event

Win $40,000 in prizes: courses, tests, and more

prepapr

Joined: 06 Jan 2025

Last visit: 22 Apr 2026

Posts: 92

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 5

GMAT Focus 1: 615 Q85 V80 DI77 Verified score

Posts: 92

Kudos: 82

[1]

26 Dec 2025, 08:30

Kudos

Bookmarks

Context: A district replaces lectures with lab based science instruction. After one year, average science scores increased by 12% in those schools
Conclusion: The district concludes that lab based instruction is more effective than traditional lectures and decides to implement it districtwide.
Logical gap: The argument assumes causation from correlation. The score increase may not have been caused by the lab based format, other factors might be present

Evaluating answer choices
A)teacher experience does not directly test whether the test format itself caused the score increase
B)improvement in other subjects does not give us the idea of cause of science scores increase
C) This can be useful, it can give us the idea os some other factors if they exist. But it does not help us do a direct comparison with the traditional format
D)Career interest is not relevant to the test format
E) This is a control mechanism. If the traditional lecture based schools also improved in the mean time, then we can conclude that the score increases is not due to the lab based format. Else this provides a strong support for the conclusion.

Hence E is the answer

Bunuel

Gift

12 Days of Christmas Competition

This question is part of our holiday event

Win $40,000 in prizes: courses, tests, and more

sunshineeee

Joined: 17 May 2020

Last visit: 09 Apr 2026

Posts: 96

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 223

Location: Indonesia

Schools: Stern '26 (WL) Tepper '26 (WL) BU'26 (A) Ross '26 Johnson '26

Posts: 96

Kudos: 22

[1]

26 Dec 2025, 08:39

Kudos

Bookmarks

Action & Goal:
One district replaced Traditional lectures with Hands-on labs to improve learning outcomes

Result:
test scores in these schools ROSE by an average 12%

Conclusion:
Lab-based MORE EFFECTIVE format of teaching SCIENCE, and decided to implement it across all schools.

To evaluate:
Is the improved score because of the hands-on lab model, or any other factor?
How about other schools that are not receiving intervention? Have their scores increased or not? Is it because of the lab method or other factors possible?

So, the relevant answer is E.

Why others might be incorrect
A. It doesn't address the test score that rises
B. The argument does not talk about other subjects
C. irrelevant about any other changes to other schools
D. irrelevant about pursuing a science career

Bunuel

Gift

12 Days of Christmas Competition

This question is part of our holiday event

Win $40,000 in prizes: courses, tests, and more

adityaprateek15

Joined: 26 May 2023

Last visit: 23 Apr 2026

Posts: 346

Own Kudos:

170

[1]

Given Kudos: 323

Location: India

Schools: Ross '26 Tepper '26 McCombs '26

GPA: 2.7

Products:

Schools: Ross '26 Tepper '26 McCombs '26

Posts: 346

Kudos: 170

[1]

26 Dec 2025, 08:43

Kudos

Bookmarks

To evaluate this conclusion, we need to test the main assumption. Is the lab based format actually the cause of the improvement?

A. This is interesting, but not the very helpful. If they had experience, it might explain why the program was successful, but it doesn't challenge the conclusion.

B. This choice present an alternative cause for the improvement. This would weaken the conclusion. But, it only looks at what happened inside the tes group.

C. This is confusing. Did these schools also get new textbooks? Did they get a new and better schedule? Did this group of high-achieving students transfer in?

D. This is irrelevant to the conclusion.

E. This is the best schoice. It estbalishes a control group. What if 12% improvement happened across all schools in the district? Then our conclusion breaks and vice versa.

Option E

Bunuel

Gift

12 Days of Christmas Competition

This question is part of our holiday event

Win $40,000 in prizes: courses, tests, and more

MANASH94

Joined: 25 Jun 2025

Last visit: 23 Apr 2026

Posts: 89

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 16

Location: India

Schools: IIM IIM ISB

GPA: 2.9

Schools: IIM IIM ISB

Posts: 89

Kudos: 63

[1]

26 Dec 2025, 08:46

Kudos

Bookmarks

I am confused between C and E. But I marked E here is why:

The Premise is: After replacing lectures with labs for one year, a school district observed a 12% increase in standardized science test scores.
The Conclusion says that the lab-based format is a more effective method of teaching science than the traditional lecture format.
The Gap seems to be that the argument assumes a causal link between the new format and the higher scores. It ignores the possibility that the scores rose due to external factors (like an easier test) or that the old lecture format would have produced the same (or better) results under the same conditions that year.

Evaluating the answer choices
A. Whether the teachers who implemented the lab-based format had prior experience... — Incorrect.
Whether or not they had experience might explain why the labs were successful, but it doesn't help us decide if the lab format itself is better than the lecture format.

B. Whether students in these schools also showed improvement in subjects still taught through lectures. — Incorrect.
While this hints at a "general improvement," it’s too broad. Students could improve in English because of a new English textbook, which tells us nothing about whether Science labs are better than Science lectures.

C. Whether any other changes to curriculum, scheduling, or student population occurred... — Incorrect.
This is a strong option choice. While knowing about a variable is useful, it only looks at the Lab group. Even if no other changes occurred, we still don't know if the labs performed better than the lectures would have that year.

D. Whether students... reported higher levels of interest in pursuing science careers. — Incorrect.
This measures "interest," which is a different metric than the "learning outcomes" (test scores) mentioned in the premise and conclusion.

E. Whether schools that maintained the traditional lecture-based format showed similar improvements in test scores over the same time period. — Correct.
This provides the Control Group. To evaluate if Method A is more effective than Method B or not, you must know how Method B performed during the same timeframe.
If the lecture-based schools also saw a 12% rise, the effectiveness of the labs is overturned; the rise was most likely due to an easier test or other factors.

Hence for me answer should be E.

Bunuel

Gift

12 Days of Christmas Competition

This question is part of our holiday event

Win $40,000 in prizes: courses, tests, and more

Mardee

Joined: 22 Nov 2022

Last visit: 02 Feb 2026

Posts: 225

Own Kudos:

191

[1]

Given Kudos: 20

Posts: 225

Kudos: 191

[1]

26 Dec 2025, 08:51

Kudos

Bookmarks

A. Irrelevant as this doesent explain whether the method caused the improvement
B. Irrelevant as improvement in other subjects doesent explain the science score increase due to hands-on lab activities
C. Not as relevant since it doesent tell us if the new format outperformed the traditional method even if there are other changes
D. Irrelevant as it isnt helpful to evaluvating the conclusion since it doesent talk about the cause of the test score increase.
E. Relevant since if the lecture based schools have also increased then improvement could be due to general trends but if it has not increased then the new format might very well be the reason for the cause

E.

msignatius

Joined: 28 Aug 2025

Last visit: 09 Apr 2026

Posts: 131

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 31

Location: India

Concentration: Strategy, Marketing

Schools: ISB '27 NUS '26 INSEAD Jan '26 (S) IESE '26 (D) HEC (S) IMD ESADE'26 Judge '26 LBS '27

GMAT Focus 1: 705 Q86 V85 DI84 Verified score

GPA: 3.5

WE:Marketing (Consulting)

Products:

Schools: ISB '27 NUS '26 INSEAD Jan '26 (S) IESE '26 (D) HEC (S) IMD ESADE'26 Judge '26 LBS '27

GMAT Focus 1: 705 Q86 V85 DI84 Verified score

Posts: 131

Kudos: 98

26 Dec 2025, 09:00

Kudos

Bookmarks

With high school science classes being replacing traditional lectures with lab activities in a particular district, and science test scores improving afterwards, it isn't necessary that the activities caused this increase - it could merely be a coincidence. With this aspect in mind, lets look at the options.

A: We're looking to find ways to judge the conclusion better. A teacher's affinity / skill with effectively implementing these classes will take away from the role of the program, and add to the role of the teacher. So not relevant.

B: Whether they showed improvement in other subjects or not is irrelevant in judging the impact on science specifically.

C: If another change has led to such a consequence, as in the increase of science scores, it does present a major spanner in the role of this shift. So it is a key factor to evaluation.

D: Student interest will then only serve as an alternative factor - not helpful in evaluating the conclusion.

E: We aren't concerned with other schools, and even if they did improve in traditional means, it could merely be a coincidence.

Bunuel

Gift

12 Days of Christmas Competition

This question is part of our holiday event

Win $40,000 in prizes: courses, tests, and more

arushi118

Joined: 21 Jul 2024

Last visit: 19 Apr 2026

Posts: 267

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 894

Location: India

Concentration: Leadership, General Management

Schools: INSEAD Aug '26 LBS '26 Kellogg '26

GPA: 8.2/10

Products:

Schools: INSEAD Aug '26 LBS '26 Kellogg '26

Posts: 267

Kudos: 76

27 Dec 2025, 22:13

Kudos

Bookmarks

To judge if the lab-based method caused the improvement, we need to know whether schools that didn’t change methods also saw similar score increases.
If they did, the improvement may not be due to the new teaching method.
Hence, E.