In a survey of job applicants, two-fifths admitted to being at least a

The correct answer is A,



A) some dishonest people taking the survey might have claimed on the survey to be honest- IF some dishonest candidate CLAIM on the survey to be honest , this will underestimate the the proportion of job applicants who are dishonest Beacause if they would have claimed correcly (during the survey) it would have increased the number of dishonest job applicants .

HTH ..

I think this is from OG 10 ..

Let's say there are 10 total job applicants.

4 admit to being dishonest, or 2/5 of applicants.

According to B, some generally honest people taking the survey might have claimed on the survey to be dishonest, so let's say there are 2 of those people. This would make the actual proportion of dishonest people 1/5.

Therefore the survey overestimated the actual proportion of dishonest applicants at 2/5 when the actual proportion is 1/5.

That was great explanation perseverance. You seems to be strong in CR can you provide me some tips??

Thanks sagarsabnis. Although I'm far from an expert in CR, it is definitely my strongest area in Verbal. Here's my approach. Keep in mind this may not work for everyone, but it seems to help me out.

I think it's beneficial if you read my thought process with a sample question. As a good example, I'm going to use a question that you posted a few days ago if you don't mind.

In the United States, of the people who moved from one state to another when they retired, the percentage
who retired to Florida has decreased by three percentage points over the past ten years. Since many local
businesses in Florida cater to retirees, these declines are likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect
on these businesses and therefore on the economy of Florida.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument given?

(A) People who moved from one state to another when they retired moved a greater distance, on average,
last year than such people did ten years ago.
(B) People were more likely to retire to North Carolina from another state last year than people were
ten years ago.
(C) The number of people who moved from one state to another when they retired has increased significantly
over the past ten years.
(D) The number of people who left Florida when they retired to live in another state was greater last year than
it was ten years ago.
(E) Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other
state.


First thing I do is read the question. I've heard various sources argue for and against this method but in my opinion, it's the best thing to read first. So in the question above, I would think to myself that I'm looking for a statement that weakens the argument. This way, while reading the passage, I can begin to come up with some ways I myself would weaken it even before looking at the answers. Then I would read the passage. It seems to me like a lot of these passages have very long, complex sentences to try and bore the reader and make him/her lose concentration. In order to counteract this effect, I then would lay out the argument in a way I understand. (Ok, of the people who retired to a different state, those who retired to FL declined by a %, which caused the FL economy to suffer). How can I weaken that? Well somehow the answer has to do with more people retiring to FL.

Now go to the answers. In my experience, a lot of CR questions can be eliminated by POE and using the 'out of scope' method. In A, distance was never mentioned in the passage. Eliminate. In B, North Carolina?? what?? Out of scope. Eliminate. I get to C. Ah, an increase in the number of people. Good. Leave that. In D, people leaving FL? No good as I'm looking to get more people TO FL, boosting the state's economy. Elimnate. I get to E. Florida attracts more people. Yeah, that's good, but what does 'attract' mean?

So now I'm left with C and E. Odds are pretty good. A lot of the time CR answers can be eliminated down to 2. One seems to superficially help you and the other one is the correct answer. I would then compare the affect of the 2 remaining answers on the argument I layed out. In E, that's great that FL attracts more people but the passage clearly states that the percentage who actually moved to FL decreased. Now look at C. "The number of people who [actually] moved out of state increased." Sample size is bigger meaning, theoretically, the ACTUAL number of people who moved to FL can be more this year than it was over the past 10 years, even though that number correlates to a 3% drop in TOTAL number of people moving to another state. This would have a positive effect on FL's economy, therefore weakening the argument.

The key for me is eliminating the 3 pretty obvious out of scope or stregthening answers and then comparing the affect of the 2 remaining answers.

I hope this helps. Please let me know if you'd like me to expand on anything.

That was really helpful....thanks a ton mate!!!!

But I have some problems which I am listing now if possible help me out with these doubts

1) Many times it happens that I am really not able to understand the passage at one go and I have to read it 3 or 4 times which undoubtedly takes time. So in this kind of question whats ur strategy??

2) If I overcome the 1st problem and then start thinking what could be the answer then I can boil down to 2 options but believe me 90% of times it happens that the answer which I mark is the wrong one. This is what really frustrates me a lot.
This is because in verbal section my performance is just about average but if I get the trick to overcome these problems then I can definitely reach my target score.

Now in the following question I could again get down to last 2 options and eventually got wrong. Could you help me with this as well please?

Museum visitor: ‘This painting is definitely a Monet. The brush strokes, shading, and subject matter are all characteristic of Monet.’

The visitor presupposes which of the following:

A. Monet was a great artist.
B. Painting is the only type of art that allows a determination of the artist from certain characteristics.
C. Nothing besides brush strokes, shading, and subject matter allows one to identify Monet as the artist of a painting.
D. It takes little skill to identify a Monet painting.
E. No other artist used the brush strokes, shading, and subject matter observed in the painting.

3) I am also bad at bold faces CR. Do you have any tips for these kind of questions?

Thanks a lot once again.

1) Many times it happens that I am really not able to understand the passage at one go and I have to read it 3 or 4 times which undoubtedly takes time. So in this kind of question whats ur strategy??

This seems to be a problem with many people. I think it goes back to what I said in my previous post about the fact that a lot of CR questions have these long, sometimes excrutiating sentences that try to throw off the concentration of the reader. What I try to do is break up the sentences into smaller sentences or fragments. If you find yourself rereading the passage 3 or 4 times, I would take it fragment by fragment and jot down the meaning of each on a piece of paper (I know, I know, a time waster). But I feel like this is a good start to understanding the passages in pieces and then putting the pieces together to form the argument the author is trying to convey. Once you have mastered this, it will be easier to attack the meaning of the passage without jotting it down. It will help pick out the important pieces that construct the argument.

2) If I overcome the 1st problem and then start thinking what could be the answer then I can boil down to 2 options but believe me 90% of times it happens that the answer which I mark is the wrong one. This is what really frustrates me a lot.

To me, this is the hardest part of the whole process. I agree, it is very frustrating. Unfortunately, I don't have the best advice for overcoming this. What I can say, however, is that I usually try to see if I can take one answer and see if it actually strengthens the argument when it's really supposed to weaken it. Trying adding the answer to the passage. Reread it again with the answer imbedded in it (again, I know, time waster but good to practice!) A lot of the time, doing this can make you think of the answer and argument in a totally different light.

3) I am also bad at bold faces CR. Do you have any tips for these kind of questions?

Practice makes perfect, or close to it I don't have an exact strategy for these. Sorry.

No problem at all. Thanks for putting me on the spot haha.

First, read the question. "The visitor presupposes which of the following:" Ok, well what we're looking for is how the visitor came to the conclusion that he did, whatever that may be. Read the passage. Obviously, he thinks its a Monet for the listed reasons. But how/what knowledge did he have to come to that conclusion? Now to the answers.

A. Just because Monet is a great artist doesn't mean that's why the visitor thinks its a Monet. Out of scope.
B. This is out of scope as well. It makes us contemplate if other types of art allow a determination of the artist.
C. This seems too concrete and forceful at first. It leads you to try and think if other things could have helped the visitor identify the painting. This is no indicative of identifying the painting. It is not 'what he used' to come to the conclusion, but rather why he thought that it was a Monet.
D. Out of scope. Whether it takes a lot of skill or none at all is irrelevant.
E. The conclusion is that it's a Monet. Since no other artist uses the listed characteristics, it has to be a Monet. Here's our answer

I bet you got it down to C and E. Remember, the conclusion is that it is a Monet painting, not that he used the brush strokes etc. to identify it. The characteristics the visitor used to identify it are meaningless. It's the fact that he identified it as a Monet.

Hopefully my logic is correct. What's the OA?

why not D?

some people who claimed on the survey to b dishonest may been answering honestly.

In a survey of job applicants, two-fifths admitted to being at least a little dishonest. However, the survey may
underestimate the proportion of job applicants who are dishonest, because____.

A. some dishonest people taking the survey might have claimed on the survey to be honest
yes, this option statement supports the conclusion. If the dishonest people have claimed on the survey to be honest than the survey underestimates the proportion of job applicants who are dishonest. Then the survey is not representative of the actual number of people who are dishonest.

B. some generally honest people taking the survey might have claimed on the survey to be dishonest
If that is the case, than the survey will overestimate the proportion of job applicants who are dishonest instead of underestimating. So, this option statement goes in the opposite way.

C. some people who claimed on the survey to be at least a little dishonest may be very dishonest
This is irrelevant. As the argument is not concerned with the degrees of dishonesty or honesty. Survey is concerned about the the proportion of job applicants who are dishonest.

D. some people who claimed on the survey to be dishonest may have been answering honestly
This option has no impact on the argument. Because people who are honest in their claim will have no affect on the underestimation count.

E. some people who are not job applicants are probably at least a little dishonest
Irrelevant. The argument is concerned only about the job applicants.

balagevr IF D is considered true, then there will also be some people who claimed on the survey to be dishonest may have been answering dishonestly.
even if not all of those claimed dishonest people are answering honestly, that only increases the proportion of dishonest people and in turn weakens the conclusion.

2/5 admitted to being dishonest. - So out of every 5, 2 people said they were dishonest.
the survey may underestimate the proportion of job applicants who are dishonest - possibly, 3 or even 4 people out of every 5 are dishonest but the survey just says 2 - it underestimates

Why? Because some dishonest people may have claimed to be honest. They are dishonest after all so they could have made a false claim. Hence, the actual number of dishonest people may be more than 2.

(A) some dishonest people taking the survey might have claimed on the survey to be honest

Correct.

(B) some generally honest people taking the survey might have claimed on the survey to be dishonest

Unlikely. If they are honest people, they are unlikely to say they are dishonest. In any case, this would overestimate the number of dishonest people. But we need to provide reason for underestimating the number of dishonest people. We need a reason for 2 out of 5 to be less than actual number.

(C) some people who claimed on the survey to be at least a little dishonest may be very dishonest

Level of dishonesty is irrelevant. We are talking about "at least a little dishonest up to whatever level".

(D) some people who claimed on the survey to be dishonest may have been answering honestly

This just says that some people who say they are dishonest are actually dishonest. So 2 people who claimed to be dishonest may actually be dishonest. Ok, but this doesn't explain why the number of 2 out of 5 may be an underestimation and the actual number may be 3 or 4 out of 5.

(E) some people who are not job applicants are probably at least a little dishonest

The survey was only of job applicants so that is our only group of interest. Others are irrelevant.

Answer (A)­

clearly A as the survey only takes into account the answers of people who were being honest to the survey and there would be another set that is being dishonest to the survey.

A has to be the correct answer. Because if it is true then there are more dishonest people in the group but they are not shown in the results.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.