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

In humans, ingested protein is broken down into amino acids, all of which must compete to enter the brain. Subsequent ingestion of sugars leads to the production of insulin, a hormone that breaks down the sugars and also rids the bloodstream of residual amino acids, except for tryptophan, Tryptophan then slips into the brain uncontested and is transformed into the chemical serotonin, increasing the brain's serotonin level. Thus sugars can play a major role in mood elevation, helping one to feel relaxed and anxiety-free.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Elevation of mood and freedom from anxiety require increasing the level of serotonin the brain.
(B) Failure to consume foods rich in sugars results in anxiety and a lowering of mood.
(C) Serotonin can be produced naturally only if tryptophan is presented in the bloodstream.
(D) Increasing the level of serotonin in the brain promotes relaxation and freedom from anxiety.
(E) The consumption of protein-rich foods results in anxiety and a lowering of mood.



Hi VeritasKarishma.
Can you please help me with this question.
I was confused between option A and option D.

After going through some basics, I came up with a reason to eliminate Option A and a reason to not eliminate A.(BIG CONFUSION)


ELIMINATION:
If
A causes B.

The main assumption of the argument is the A ONLY causes B.

it means that If A happens, B has to happen.


Now option A:
B requires A to happen.
This will imply that that the occurrence of of B depends on A happening i.e A is a necessary condition for B to happen.
This implies that B might still not occur.(if other conditions are not met)
The author by stating a causation never assumes this concept.

Am I right in thinking along this line of reasoning?


ON the other hand if my statement would have been:
Only A causes B.
Then this statement would have been an appropriate assumption.

NOT ELIMINATE:

Q.Also can we eliminate option A using negation technique?


For eg: A is not needed for B to happen.
This means that B can happen without the occurrence of A.
B happens without A happening.

Confusion: wouldn't this then break the argument?


I would love to hear your thoughts on why Is option A incorrect.

Looking forward to your reply

Regards
Nitesh

In humans, ingested protein is broken down into amino acids, all of which must compete to enter the brain. Subsequent ingestion of sugars leads to the production of insulin, a hormone that breaks down the sugars and also rids the bloodstream of residual amino acids, except for tryptophan, Tryptophan then slips into the brain uncontested and is transformed into the chemical serotonin, increasing the brain's serotonin level. Thus sugars can play a major role in mood elevation, helping one to feel relaxed and anxiety-free.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?


(B) Failure to consume foods rich in sugars results in anxiety and a lowering of mood.



Hi VeritasKarishma

I am sorry for putting the following doubt in another post. The original post was already very long.

Doubt:

Isn't option B a case for No cause No effect?

Sugar food causes mood elevation

No sugar food causes no mood elevation

From what I have read in various explaination, Option B is incorrect because it says food rich in sugar.
What I cannot understand is how does this make this option incorrect?

Can I say that since it brings additional information (food rich in sugar),hence this is incorrect.

The problem I have in this option is: I cannot exactly explain as to WHY this option is exactly incorrect.

I know the question is a bit abstract, but nevertheless I am looking forward to any and all of your views on this option.

Regards
Nitesh

Hello Karishma,please am following the Veritas RC STOP strategy but it seems that I take a lot of time around 2.5 minutes on the passage of which I have to come back to the passage again for specific questions asked . Any efficient way to apply that strategy or is there any suggested strategy that can help me with accuracy and speed
Thank you


Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Hey Staphyk,

This thread is for CR so I would rather not mix it, but I will take your question on the Veritas forum here:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-336/

Will put up a reply there soon.

Waste management companies, which collect waste for disposal in landfills and incineration plants, report that disposable plastics make up an ever-increasing percentage of the waste they handle. It is clear that attempts to decrease the amount of plastic that people throw away in the garbage are failing.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Because plastics create harmful pollutants when burned, an increasing percentage of the plastics handled by waste management companies are being disposed of in landfills.
(B) Although many plastics are recyclable, most of the plastics disposed of by waste management companies are not.
(C) People are more likely to save and reuse plastic containers than containers made of heavier materials like glass or metal.
(D) An increasing proportion of the paper, glass, and metal cans that waste management companies used to handle is now being recycled.
(E) While the percentage of products using plastic packaging is increasing, the total amount of plastic being manufactured has remained unchanged


Hi VeritasKarishma

Conclusion: The amount of plastic that people throw is increasing.
Premise: The proportion of plastic is increasing.

Pre thinking:
What if the total amount of the waste has decreased.
Assumption: The total waste has not decreased.

Challenges to this assumption:
the amount of other waste has reduced.
the amount of total waste has reduced.


The OA is D in this question.

But in order for this option to weaken the argument we have to assume that the the amount of other waste materials is not increasing.
Just because the proportion is increasing we cant say that the amount is also increasing.

For eg:
Previously
If other material: 100
Recycled: 50
Companies handled: 50 (50%)

Today
If other material: 200
Recycled:120
Companies handled: 80(40%)

Hence inspite the increase in the proportion of recycled material, the amount of materials companies handle will increase.

In such a case:
Previously
Total materials: 100
Plastic:50
Others:50

Today:
total materials: 170
Plastic: 90
Others:80

this will then strength the argument.

Now one could object to this argument that a statement need to only weaken the argument by 1%.
But, if a statement has a varied impact on the argument, then definitely the option is incorrect.

SO what am I missing in this question?


Looking forward to your reply

Regards
Nitesh

Hello Karishma, Wanna know wether my strategy is right for CR
I cover concepts of particular topic e.g. “Must be true “ and practice only questions on it from GC from level 500-600 and move to the next topic when am done ,Is it right ?


Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Staphyk,

That depends on what your target score is.
If you are looking at building strong concepts, I would suggest you to work on 600-700 level questions too after the sub 600 level questions. No point leaving them for round 2. They are quite conceptual too.
Once you are through with all topics and practice questions of below 700 level, you can look at the 700+ level questions.
But yes, this does depend on your target score. If it is around 500-550, then your current strategy may be sufficient.

Hi VeritasKarishma

I think you might have missed this doubt.
Please do discuss this.

Regards
Nitesh

Thank you


Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Hello Karishma,

Thanks for your guidance on various topics on this forum.

CR is one of my weakest sections on GMAT.
I have tried the e-gmat's Pre thinking approach and also read CR bible.

But none of them seem to help with arguments that are convoluted.
My mind just can not pre think in these arguments and i spend way too much understanding the information and i panick, and end up choosing the wrong answer.

How do you think i can improve in this section?

Let me also highlight one more thing, i am not that bad at RC's..My accuracy is about 70%.
Why i highlight this fact is that i can comprehend passages better than i can comprehend critical thinking arguments. My mind does not understand the logic and gap in reasoning.

WHat would you suggest to a student like me? Should i practice more or triage such questions? Should i work on basics again?

I would really appreciate your feedback.

Hello Mam
I have douubt in OG question
Q1)https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-kinds-of-hand-and-wrist-injuries-that-result-from-extended-242144.html
Here if i draw parallel with this question of OG:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/although-the ... 02757.html
in this question we eliminated option D considering we are concerned with effects of schools cafeteria having machine,what they bring from outside was not relevant.
In Q1,we are also concerned with reducing injuries in school,so how come option C be correct.
Can you please draw parallel reasoning for me for these qsns.
Though i understood the qsn but suddenly vending machine qsn struck me so i marked wrong answer.

Thank you so much

The retinas of premature babies are not fully developed at birth. Because their retinas are so delicate, premature babies sometimes lose their sight. Methods for preventing this syndrome, which is called retinopathy of prematurity, have improved, but the proportion of premature babies who lose their sight because of this syndrome has increased.

Which of the following, if true, best reconciles the apparent discrepancy described above?

A. When premature babies are born, their retinas are developmentally unprepared to deal with light and air in the environment outside the womb.
B. The oxygen that must be administered to premature babies at birth can sometimes have a damaging effect on the babies’ retinas, but the oxygen is now administered in less damaging concentrations than it used to be.
C. The effects of retinopathy of prematurity can be reduced by controlling the exposure of premature babies to light and oxygen, but this method cannot completely prevent the syndrome.
D. The improvement of methods to prevent retinopathy of prematurity has been a gradual process, and there is still a need for further knowledge.
E. Improved medical technology is saving the lives of premature babies who would previously have died, but these babies have even more delicate retinas than do other premature babies and are more apt to lose their sight.


HI VeritasKarishma
The OA for this question is B.
But I cannot understand how does it resolve the paradox.
Paradox according to me:
THe methods have improved----which should have led to the fall in the incidence of premature babies losing their sight

But the proportion of premature babies who lost sight has increased.

I pre thought:
What if the number of premature babies has reduced. IN this case both of the facts can be true.


But the answer option B only addressed the aspect that the methods have improved and not how the proportion has increased.


Looking forward to your reply!

Regards
Nitesh

Dear VeritasKarishma,

Can you please take a look at this question. - https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-water-te ... 03369.html. I could arrive at the OA by elimination and also the logic that since the temperature of water in the ocean does not fluctuate much and "Most animals can tolerate only a limited range of all the various conditions that exist in an estuary" hence the oceans are more favorable at least in terms of constant temp. However, this seems like a very weak reasoning for an inference type question.

Please help.

Thanks as always.

Best,
Gladi

Q for reference:

Dear VeritasKarishma,

Can you please look at this one - https://gmatclub.com/forum/u-s-environm ... 01438.html

I was not able to choose between B and E. Also some expert opinions seem to be divided. Your take on it would be valuable to the community.

Thanks as always.

Regards,
Gladi

Posted from my mobile device

https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-people-m ... 11268.html

Hi VeritasKarishma

Got torn between B and D.
Rejected B : People not watching TV debates are out of the scope of passage.
Chose D : Unpredictable behaviour will effect the likelihood of a win (Improve or Decrease) and thus, this is the correct weakener.


Another issue i am facing is that I am not able to recognize the patterns in a CR question. For example this was a causal pattern and in haste or maybe in anxiety I can never figure out if it is a causal pattern or a sampling pattern etc. Any pointers ?



Regards

Dear VeritasKarishma,

Whenever I run into CR trouble I turn to you.

Can you please comment on this one - https://gmatclub.com/forum/in-a-recent- ... l#p2194617 . I am in a dilemma between option C vs. D

As always, you're the best. Thank you.

Regards,
Gladi