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

Hey Ratnaa19,

No, I don't have any such thread. Though we do have many posts which discuss Veritas Prep questions here on the forum (just search with the "Veritas Prep" tag).
I intend to provide my explanation to most of these questions and also to official questions. Feel free to post here the link to any question for which you would like me to provide my two cents.
Also, I will try to put up some tips for each question type here as suggested by Akash720. I will provide links to some examples at the end and will keep adding to them as and when I find interesting and relevant questions.

Cheers!

Hi Karishma.

I am facing issues with Strengthen /Weaken Qs particularly of below type. What should be our strategy for such type ?

Often patients with ankle fractures that are stable, and thus do not require surgery, are given follow-up x-ray because their orthopedists are concerned about possibly having misjudged the stability of the fracture. When a number of follow-up x-rays were reviewed, however, all the fractures that had initially been judged stable were found to have healed correctly. Therefore, it is a waste of money to order follow-up x-rays of ankle fracture initially judged stable.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Doctors who are general practitioners rather than orthopedists are less likely than orthopedists to judge the stability of an ankle fracture correctly.

(B) Many ankle injuries for which an initial x-ray is ordered are revealed by the x-ray not to involve any fracture of the ankle.

(C) X-rays of patients of many different orthopedists working in several hospitals were reviewed.

(D) The healing of ankle fractures that have been surgically repaired is always checked by means of a follow-up x-ray.

(E) Orthopedists routinely order follow-up x-rays for fractures of bone other than ankle bones.

Hi VeritasKarishma ,
Please provide your expert advice on my queries specified in the given link-
https://gmatclub.com/forum/in-the-cours ... l#p2156852

Thanks

Hey sqube,

The most important aspect of any strengthen/weaken question is to identify the conclusion.
What is the conclusion in this question?
- it is a waste of money to order follow-up x-rays of ankle fracture initially judged stable.
In other words, when a fracture is initially judged stable, it is stable. No need to get a follow up x ray. The orthos do a get enough job when they review the fracture as stable initially.

So now we need to strengthen our conclusion.

(A) Doctors who are general practitioners rather than orthopedists are less likely than orthopedists to judge the stability of an ankle fracture correctly.
This does not strengthen our conclusion. We don't know whether sometimes general practitioners judge the initial stability of fractures but if they do, actually we do need to have a follow up x ray (since they may not do as good a job as orthos)

(B) Many ankle injuries for which an initial x-ray is ordered are revealed by the x-ray not to involve any fracture of the ankle.
Irrelevant. This talks about injuries which are not fractures. We are only concerned about ankle fractures which are initially judged stable. Rest of the injury universe is irrelevant to us.

(C) X-rays of patients of many different orthopedists working in several hospitals were reviewed.
This is interesting. We are concluding that we don't need follow up x rays, that orthos are capable of identifying stable fractures initially itself. If we had reviewed various diff orthos from various diff hospitals, it means that generally, orthos are capable. It strengthens our conclusion. Say if most of the x rays reviewed were of a single ortho, can we say that we don't need to get a second x ray done? What if that particular ortho is capable but others are not? Checking the skills of various orthos helps better establish that a second x ray if not needed. This is the answer

(D) The healing of ankle fractures that have been surgically repaired is always checked by means of a follow-up x-ray.
This is talking about ankle fractures which are not deemed stable initially (since they need surgery). Again, this is outside the scope of our argument. What happens with unstable ankle fractures we don't care. The only relevant topic is "ankle fractures which are initially judged stable".

(E) Orthopedists routinely order follow-up x-rays for fractures of bone other than ankle bones.
Again, as we said before, rest of the injury universe is irrelevant to us.

Answer (C)

Here you go: https://gmatclub.com/forum/in-the-cours ... l#p2156914

Hi VeritasKarishma

Thanks a lot for this initiative.

I have a query regarding the below one:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/when-a-city-experiences-a-sharp-decline-in-population-the-142347.html

In the aforementioned question, OA is marked as (A). But I can't see any reason to accept this answer choice. It's a must be true question and the choice of words in correct answer choice seems too extreme to me as in "will deteriorate or be eliminated". I find (D) as a strong contender because it directly relates to the passage. Some people mentioned the reason of elimination for answer choice (D) as "other cities." being out of scope. If it is, then how can "other service" be in the scope?
If it had been "might" in place of "will", (A) would have been the choice.

Thanks again !!

Hey karishma, could you please share your detailed analysis on options A and E on this official Q.

https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-tax-system-of-the-republic-of-grootland-encourages-borrowing-by-gr-5173.html

Hi VeritasKarishma,

I wonder with the strengthen and weaken questions, negate technique can be applied?

Thank you

Premises:
Sharp decline in population causes tax revenue to reduce.
But the areas which this revenue supports is still the same such as police protection and maintenance of water lines.
We cannot make up by increasing tax rate since more people will leave.

We need a conclusion. Something that follows from what is given. There should be no new information.

A. If, in a city with sharply declining population, police protection and water line maintenance do not deteriorate, some other service previously provided by the city will deteriorate or be eliminated.
The tax revenues decrease when population decreases. Since the revenues cannot be recovered by raising tax rate (since it will mean more people leaving and consequently lower collection points), it means the revenue will reduce. The need for the revenue does not reduce for at least some services. Hence, some services will certainly suffer. If police protection and water line maintenance do not suffer, something will suffer.
This follows what is given to us in the argument. There is nothing called "this option is incorrect due to usage of extreme language". If the premises give you extreme data, the option will use extreme language.
If the premises give you: "If A happens, B will happen." and "A has happened", what will you conclude? That B WILL HAPPEN. Can you say that the language is too extreme here? No.

D. A city that suffers revenue losses because of a sharp decline in population can make up some of the lost tax revenue by raising tax rates, provided the city's tax rates are low in relation to those of other cities.
What happens when the city increases tax rate, we cannot say. The premises give us that we cannot make up for lost revenue by increasing tax rate. Are we able to make up for it partially provided the tax rate still remains low, we cannot say. Note that we have no information on why people choose a certain city to live in. Perhaps its tax rate is lower but the quality of air and water isn't that great. Perhaps its cost of living is high. What happens when the tax rate is increased slightly (but is still less than other cities), overall it may not make financial sense for people to stay. The point is, we don't know how people will react if the taxes are raised even a tiny bit. We do know that raising tax rates cannot make up the loss in revenue and that is all. The argument tells us nothing else. We have to stick to the universe created by our argument.


Answer (A)

Here:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-tax-syst ... l#p2161288

Hey Chungrpi!

Negation technique doesn't make sense with strengthen and weaken questions. The correct option is something that makes the conclusion more or less likely but it is not necessary in case of strengthen and neither does it kill the conclusion in case of weaken questions.

So say A strengthens the conclusion. If A is negated, will it kill the conclusion? No. A is just something that makes the conclusion more likely. It is not necessary for the conclusion.

The negation technique makes sense in case of assumption questions because assumptions are NECESSARY for the conclusion. If the assumption is not true, the conclusion fails.

Hi Karishma.

Art restorers who have been studying the factors that cause Renaissance oil paintings to deteriorate physically when subject to climatic changes have found that the oil paint used in these paintings actually adjusts to these changes well. The restorers therefore hypothesize that it is a layer of material called gesso, which is under the paint, that causes the deterioration.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the restorers’ hypothesis?

(A) Renaissance oil paintings with a thin layer of gesso are less likely to show deterioration in response to climatic changes than those with a thicker layer.

(B) Renaissance oil paintings are often painted on wooden panels, which swell when humidity increases and contract when it declines.

(C) Oil paint expands and contracts readily in response to changes in temperature, but it absorbs little water and so is little affected by changes in humidity.

(D) An especially hard and nonabsorbent type of gesso was the raw material for moldings on the frames of Renaissance oil paintings.

(E) Gesso layers applied by Renaissance painters typically consisted of a coarse base layer onto which several increasingly fine-grained layers were applied.




We could condense down the argument to:

Conclusion:
Gesso Causes deterioration.

Premise:
Oil paint does not react to Changes in Temperature.


When I was pre-thinking:

I saw the Logical gap : Gesso doesnot react to changes in temperate and
since it was a causality: NO cause No effect will also strength the argument.

But I have read in forums that in arguments, which involve causation, can also strengthed by saying C does not cause B.


My question: In this specific question, since the conclusion/hypothesis is related to a general fact, even if we were to say that some other factor has not caused deterioration, I feel that the conclusion will not be strengthed. Gesso could still may or may not have caused deterioation.


On the other hand if it said that Gesso caused the deterioration in some paintings, then definitely some other factor objection will make sense.

Can you please tell me whether this way of approach is correct?

Regards
Nitesh

https://gmatclub.com/forum/demographers-doing-research-for-an-international-economics-81936-40.html#p2161456
I selected E . But please correct my reasoning for option B. I was stuck between these two. But i rejected option B on the basis of EXTREME POVERTY.

karishma i'll be using your analysis:
"Demographers doing research for an international economics newsletter claim that the average per capita income in the country of Kuptala is substantially lower than that in the country of Bahlton." -
Say average per capita income of K is $10,000
Say average per capita income of B is $40,000

"They also claim, however, that whereas poverty is relatively rare in Kuptala, over half the population of Bahlton lives in extreme poverty. At least one of the demographers’ claims must, therefore, be wrong."

lets consider poverty limit in K = 1000
poverty limit in B = 20,000

now lets alsmot all K's are above 1000 and near to 10000
and most of K are below 20k . But a group of B citizens earn so much that the avg gets to 40k (similar to your reasoning)

the xtreme poverty according to B can be 20k
even in this sitiation BOTH STATEMENTS ARE RIGHT. PLease correct my reasoning

https://gmatclub.com/forum/hiring-manag ... 62764.html

please exlain me the crucial points that make B the necessary assumption and not C
according to me the conclusion is: no interview - might hire ppl with unsuitable traits.
now my doubt is does the conclsuion mean to say "if interview - suitable " ...does this include always suitable or most of the suitable? please also temme what should i infer or exactly take as conclusion when such type of unclear (accoridng to me) conc. is present.
Thankyou

The main thing about strengthen is this - it makes the conclusion MORE LIKELY. It does not establish the conclusion beyond doubt.

So the situation of why a painting deteriorates can be seen like this:
- Oil paints don't deteriorate.

Conclusion - we hypothesize that Gesso deteriorates.

But what if something else deteriorates instead? Say, we come to know that the canvass used in those days deteriorates with climatic changes. Then that puts a doubt in our mind about the hypothesis, right? Hmm, so the canvass doesn't hold well. So it is possible that we are betting on the wrong thing. Note that Gesso may also deteriorate and our hypothesis may still be correct but this information makes us doubt our hypothesis.
Similarly, if we find out that canvass holds well for centuries under any climatic conditions. Then that makes it "more likely" that we are right. To be certain, we need to eliminate ALL other possibilities but eliminating one possibility brings us closer to our conclusion. Hence, it does strengthen our conclusion.

Here is the problem with your analysis:
Even if poverty does not have a precise, universally accepted definition, you cannot apply such different definitions to different circumstances. You have to use the definition you believe in - whether it is $1000 a year or $1200 a year etc.
Also, we are talking about poverty in K vs extreme poverty in B. How can poverty be $1000 and extreme poverty be $20,000?

So, try to find the option that suits the reasoning of the argument, not the one that you can twist to work with the argument.
Does that help?

Conclusion: Interviews are important because without them, we might hire people with unsuitable personalities.
Without interviews, we may hire people with unsuitable personalities. With interviews, we do not hire such people.

We are looking for an assumption (something that MUST be true):

B. An applicant is not able to hide personality traits that may be detrimental to the given position or company.
True. We are saying that interviews are important - without them, we may hire some people with unsuitable personalities. So this means that with interviews, we do not hire people with unsuitable personalities. So people with unsuitable personalities are not able to hide their personalities. Otherwise, if people were able to hide their personalities, an interview may not have been that effective.

C. All interviewers at Lightwave Industries are capable of determining whether a candidate's personality is a good fit for the company and position.
The most popular incorrect option - note here the use of the word "interviewers". I agree that had this been "interview", I would have been biting my nails on this question. But interviewers makes it very clear that this is not an assumption. We cannot say that an interview must have a single interviewer and that there would be a single interview. In fact, the question says "the process involves interviews (plural)". So even if ALL interviewers are not capable, the conclusion can still hold.

Answer (B)