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

Hey DanielEMZ,

"Which of the following would be most useful to investigate for the purpose of evaluating the plan's prospects for achieving its goal?"

This is a "useful to evaluate" question. I have discussed this in detail in the two posts given below:

https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2016/0 ... reasoning/
https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2016/0 ... s-part-ii/

Hi VeritasKarishma ,

could you please help me to come out of this mess in mind:-

https://gmatclub.com/forum/political-ad ... l#p2565245




This question really need your expertise suggestion.


I read word by word and calculated mathematically but still i get C answer again and again and D is rejected again and again.

Please check why


My Explanation :
I think in the statement : Some of the jobs created in the city during Mayor Delmont's tenure have in the meantime been eliminated again.
It talks about the same JOB that were created. IT means the average salary of LOST jobs was higher than average . Hence the average would REDUCE for SURE.

Mathematically,
Before number of jobs = X (100 ) and average salary U( 100$)
New jobs created = Y ( 50) and average salary V (>U)( 200$)
Average = 133.33$

New jobs lost = Z(10) and average salary V (>U)( 200$)
New new average=[ 100*100 + 50*200 – 10*200]/ (100+50-10)= 20000-5000/100 = 128.5$

Average SALARY IS DECREASED.

Hence STRENGTHEN



My Explanation:
FINAL average would remain SAME( because average LOST == average CREATED)
Jobs lost but not lost jobs of higher salary.
It means:
Before number of jobs = X (100 ) and average salary U( 100$)
New jobs created = Y ( 50) and average salary V (>U)( 200$)
New average = 133.33$
Lost jobs = 50 and average salary 133.33 lost
New new average=[ 100*100 + 50*200 – 50*133.33]/ (100+50-50)= 20000-5000/100 = 133.33$
Average salary REMAIN SAME.

Hence D only says it WOULD NOT INCREASE. BUT C proves REDUCE.
SO C is ahead of D.

hence final answer should be C.

Anyone's help would be APPRECIABLE.

Hey imSKR,

In (C), we don't know what the new jobs that were lost were paying. Hence arriving at $128.5 figure is not correct.
Also, for jobs lost, more new jobs have been created which pay higher than the new average so avg may have still continued to increase.

For option (D), see why the calculations work: https://gmatclub.com/forum/political-ad ... l#p2571934

Hello dear VeritasKarishma ,

I have a question regarding one of the answer choices in question 670, page 670 ( ), OG 2020.



The correct answer is B, but the explanation for D was slightly confusing to me:


From what I have learned, using PowerScore, whenever we use an answer choice to answer a critical reasoning question, we MUST accept the answer choices as factual (because we are basing our answers upon them).

So, how come the explanation to answer choice D kind of refute this choice? As far as we are concerned, motorists would likely to encounter the speed humps unawares, that's it. But the explanation tries to explain why it is not likely to happen.

Thank you!

Hey DanielEMZ,

Yes, you have to take the options to be true. Note how the question is framed:
"Which of the following, if true, ..."

So you have to assume the options to be true.

(D) Motorists who are not familiar with the streets in Ardane's residential district would be likely to encounter the speed humps unawares unless warned by signs and painted indicators.

Option (D) says that unless they are warned by signs, guest motorists will encounter the humps unawares. This is not a drawback to the plan because warning by signs is quite feasible and commonplace. A plan is problematic if it brings up unresolvable issues (option (B)) or expensive to resolve issues. Here, option (D) itself gives you the solution to a potential problem. The solution is easily implementable so it doesn't seem to make the plan problematic.
Option (B), on the other hand, seems like an actual problem.

Hiii VeritasKarishma,

I am struggling in hard assumptions questions, any specific advise for assumptions questions?
Additionally my timing in OG hard question is bad, I take more than 2:10 to solve, even after so much of practice, and If I try to speed up my accuracy goes down.

Conclusion: The government’s plan, therefore, may serve the interests of agriculture but will clearly increase the threat to native wildlife.

bilby, an endangered native marsupial == animal
native wildlife.== animal

B. There are no species of animals on the island that prey on the rabbits.
There are no animals on island no animal (including marsupial and wild animal) would feed on rabbits that were killed by virus. Hence no danger of spreading virus to any animal (including native wildlife)
So clearly weaken the threat to native wildlife

C. Overgrazing by rabbits endangers many of the plants on which bilbies feed.
>> the discussion started: Overgrazing by the enormous population of rabbits now menaces the island’s agriculture. Because rabbits maybe eating lot of these plants anyways.
Moreover conclusion is about threat to native wildlife. But this options talks about bilbies.


Please help to reach at correct answer considering above lines of thoughts.

VeritasKarishma
https://gmatclub.com/forum/rabbits-were ... l#p2574784

Hey Thelionking1234,

Assumption questions can be hard sometimes. Here are my discussions on them:

https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2013/0 ... sumptions/
https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2013/0 ... -question/
https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2013/0 ... ons-again/
https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2016/0 ... ions-gmat/
https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2013/0 ... inference/

Taking up to 3 mins on tough CR questions is acceptable. Try to focus on the points of interest (conclusion in strengthen/weaken questions, gap in assumption questions etc) to see high accuracy.

Hey imSKR,

Here you go:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/rabbits-were ... l#p2575161

https://gmatclub.com/forum/editorial-re ... l#p2577147



Quote:


1. the conclusion is focusing only on manufactured goods but not on any goods from Risemian. Then why A is correct - SEEMS IRRELEVANT
2. Even if we assume new equipment is also under category of "manufactured goods in Risemian", it doesn't mean the new equipment would be in demand from Risemian.--SEEMS NOT STRENGTHENING and i need to assume extra that new equipment is also manufactured goods ( but in the passage, manufactured goods means that are related with amounts of pollutants as per passage)

VeritasKarishma : please suggest

Hey imSKR,

Here you go: https://gmatclub.com/forum/editorial-re ... l#p2579734

https://gmatclub.com/forum/on-pacific-i ... l#p2589345

I would be glad if someone could help me to clarify mistakes on my thoughts.





House gecko: replacing mourning gecko in Urban Areas
But stable in rural
Note: House gecko doesn’t attack mourning gecko but it doesn’t let mourning gecko to eat insects.

It means:
House gecko is stronger
They both eat insects and somehow house gecko wins.



This could be an answer?
It means, urban areas have more insects , and house gecko is stronger so it doesn’t let eat mourning gecko to eat these insects and hence mourning population is being replaced.
So A could be answer

Geckos defend their territories and housing geckos are stronger. But it doesn’t explain about concept of eating insects and why housing gecko prevents mourning geckos

It doesn’t explain any relation with insects and why housing gecko prevents mourning geckos

The lighted buildings could be in urban and rural. There could be less lighted buildings or less storey buildings in rural and more lighted buildings and high storey buildings in urban, so relatively concept is same and it doesn’t differentiate specifically why housing gecko prevents mourning geckos

It is difficult to make an assumption that how females reproduce has any effect on their competition of eating insects. It maybe possible that after reproducing asexually, mourning geckos become weak in preying insects? But still It doesn’t explain why housing gecko prevents mourning geckos.

Please check why A can't be an answer. Why D is answer ( see my explanation). AM i right in rejecting B,C ?
please suggest VeritasKarishma

In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent crime in states with strict gun-control laws was 645 crimes per 100,000 persons: about 50 percent higher than the average rate in the eleven states where strict gun-control laws have never been passed. Thus one way to reduce violent crime is to repeal strict gun control laws.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?


(A) The annual rate of violent crime in states with strict gun-control laws has decreased since the passage of those laws.

(B) In states with strict gun-control laws, few individuals are prosecuted for violating such laws.

(C) In states without strict gun-control laws, many individuals have had no formal training in the use of firearms.

(D) The annual rate of nonviolent crime is lower in states with strict gun-control laws than in states without such laws.

(E) Less than half of the individuals who reside in states without strict gun-control laws own a gun.

Hello Karishma.
Need help with choice B.

Conclusion: Since States without Gun laws have lower violent crime rate than states with Gun Laws, in order to reduce the crime rates, ONE of the way could be to abolish Gun Laws.

Weakener: Why remove current laws. They are good enough. Hence no need to repeal. Anything which supports this.

Answer A- Fits perfectly. Current Laws have worked. No need to abolish
Choice B: Current laws are not enforced strongly enough. This may weaken it if we assume that may be strong enforcement would reduce the crime rate. But since no such information given and this cant be 100% true, is this a good basis to reject this choice?

Hey.
Let me try.
So the passage says HG doesn't let MG stabilize in urban area, but non urban areas the population is stable. Thats might mean some conflicts are there in urban areas but not in non urban.
OKAY, so one such conflict is given, Its not a physical fight, but HG doesn't let MG feed on insects in area where there are more human settlement. But why this becomes a problem specifically in urban areas? Also, conflict would happen when there are instances when MG and HG interact with each or come face to face.
Could be due to the fact that insects breed in corners or specific areas like drains ( may be). Urban settlements have corners since there are buildings, and hence HG and MG MOSTLY come to those defined areas for insect consumption. Non urban areas are mostly wide open.Hence less corners or pre defined areas and hence less interaction.

Option D attacks exactly the same thinking. Streetlights.Pre defined area-OKAY there could be many street lights but a given sector MG and HG population might converge to those sectors street lights only. MORE interaction and hence more conflict.YOu did mention about the number of street lights. And that's also a point. More street lights, more instances of interactions, more conflict.

Option A says geckos are valued--- though it does say that geckos feed on insects, but that's true for both Geckos and already given in the passage. It doesn't help to justify why there is a diff between conflicts in Urban and non urban areas.

Hope it helps

Question on conditional logic.

Per my understanding, this is the theory on conditional logic

If X --> then Y, then Not Y --> Not X is a valid inference

In order to test this, i came up with an if-then statement.

If I own a Lamborghini, I must be rich

Why is this considered a valid inference?
I am not rich (Not Y) , then I don't own a Lamborghini. (Not X)

I was surprised to see the above statement a legitimate inference per my reading of CR material

Is it not possible that i am NOT rich but i can STILL own a Lamborghini ? I could have stolen the car | a friend could have given it to me completely free ....

Thoughts ?

Hi Karishma - thank you so much for what you do

Question from the Powerscore Guide

Why is E wrong ?

The first sentence clearly says Blood tests used to determine pregnancy can at times be inconclusive

Hence E seemed right to me

Thoughts ?

Hey imSKR,

Done. Please check the link.