Evaluating Argument Validity and Test of Variance

12 soru

Soru 1Soru

A commercial shipping line plans to apply a newly developed acoustic barnacle-repellent coating to the hulls of all its ocean-going container ships. Preliminary testing indicates that by preventing marine biofouling, the coating reduces hydrodynamic drag and decreases annual fuel consumption per vessel by 12 percent. Based on these fuel savings, management concludes that the financial savings from decreased fuel consumption will fully offset the high initial cost of purchasing and applying the coating within two years. Which of the following inquiries would be most useful to evaluate the validity of management's conclusion?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Whether the continuous acoustic vibrations emitted by the coating cause micro-fractures in vessel hulls that require costly structural repairs within the first two years.

Cevap

The most useful inquiry to evaluate the argument is whether the continuous acoustic vibrations emitted by the coating cause micro-fractures in vessel hulls that require costly structural repairs within the first two years.
The correct answer identifies a potential side effect (costly hull repairs caused by acoustic vibrations) that directly affects whether net savings will cover initial installation costs within two years. Applying the Test of Variance shows that if structural repairs are required, the added expense negates the net recovery goal (weakening the argument); if no repairs are needed, fuel savings cleanly cover the initial investment (strengthening the argument).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the core premises and conclusion of the argument.
Premise: Acoustic coating prevents biofouling, reducing drag and cutting annual fuel use by 12 percent. Conclusion: Operational fuel savings will fully offset the initial purchase and application costs within two years.
Evaluating an argument requires isolating the explicit leap from premise (fuel savings) to conclusion (net financial recovery within two years).
2
Identify unstated assumptions and potential hidden costs.
The argument assumes that no unmentioned operational or maintenance expenses created by applying the coating will undermine the net financial savings during the two-year period.
If implementing the plan introduces unexpected secondary costs, those costs could cancel out the projected fuel savings.
3
Apply the Test of Variance to the correct evaluation inquiry.
If YES (vibrations cause structural damage requiring costly repairs in the first two years), the extra repair costs will offset fuel savings, causing the plan to fail its two-year cost-recovery target (WEAKENS). If NO (vibrations cause no structural damage or extra repair costs), the projected fuel savings remain unencumbered, supporting two-year cost recovery (STRENGTHENS).
An evaluation choice is valid under GMAT standards if extreme opposite answers yield opposite logical impacts on the conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Argument Validity & Test of Variance
Soru 2Soru

A local coffee shop owner plans to increase total monthly profits by raising the price of all specialty espresso drinks by 10 percent. The owner reasons that because demand for specialty drinks has remained steady over the past year, customers will continue to buy the exact same quantity of drinks despite the price increase.

Which of the following would be most useful to evaluate the validity of the coffee shop owner's argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Whether the price increase will cause a significant number of customers to switch to cheaper alternatives or stop buying drinks.

Cevap

Determining whether the price increase will cause a significant number of customers to switch to cheaper alternatives or stop buying drinks is most useful for evaluating the argument.
The correct answer provides information that directly addresses the core assumption of the argument. Applying the Test of Variance: if the price increase causes customers to switch to cheaper drinks or leave, sales volume will decline and ruin profitability; if it does not cause customer loss, revenue and profits will rise as intended. Because the two extreme answers produce opposite impacts on the conclusion, this information is critical for evaluating argument validity.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument's core structure and conclusion.
Conclusion: Raising specialty espresso prices by 10 percent will increase total monthly profits. Premise: Past demand was steady, so quantity sold will remain unchanged.
Understanding the logic gap between price increase and total revenue requires testing the unstated assumption that volume will not decline.
2
Apply the Test of Variance to evaluate the impact of opposite responses.
If YES (customers switch or stop buying), total volume drops, which shatters the argument. If NO (customers buy the same quantity), total revenue increases, validating the argument.
A question that produces opposite impacts on the argument's conclusion under extreme answers is the definitive evaluation metric.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Argument Validity and Test of Variance
Soru 3Soru

Consider the following argument: A regional hospital system plans to replace all traditional brass door handles across its facilities with handles coated in a novel antimicrobial polymer coating in order to reduce patient infection rates. Hospital administrators reason that because laboratory tests demonstrate the polymer kills 99 percent of surface bacteria within fifteen minutes of contact, installing these coated handles will significantly decrease the incidence of hospital-acquired infections.

True or False: Determining whether the routine chemical cleaning solutions used by hospital sanitation staff rapidly degrade the antimicrobial efficacy of the polymer coating upon contact constitutes a valid application of the Test of Variance for evaluating the validity of the administrators' argument.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

The statement is True. Assessing whether hospital cleaning chemicals degrade the antimicrobial polymer coating is a valid test of variance because two opposite extreme answers yield opposite logical impacts on the conclusion.
The statement is correct because the proposed evaluation directly targets a necessary condition for the real-world success of the hospital's plan. Applying the Test of Variance shows that if hospital disinfectants destroy the polymer coating, the conclusion is invalid, whereas if the disinfectants leave the coating undamaged, the premise holds in practice.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the core argument structure
Premise: Laboratory tests show a polymer coating kills 99% of bacteria within 15 minutes. Conclusion: Installing polymer-coated door handles in hospitals will significantly decrease patient infection rates.
Understanding the premise-to-conclusion gap is required to evaluate what unstated assumptions link laboratory results to real-world outcomes.
2
Apply the two opposite extreme outcomes of the Test of Variance to the candidate evaluation question
Extreme Outcome 1: Cleaning chemicals DO rapidly degrade the polymer coating. Extreme Outcome 2: Cleaning chemicals DO NOT degrade the polymer coating.
The Test of Variance tests argument validity by checking if opposite polar responses exert opposite logical forces on the conclusion.
3
Analyze the logical impact of each extreme outcome on the conclusion
If degradation occurs rapidly, the handles lose their antibacterial properties under actual hospital protocols, causing the plan to fail (weakens the argument). If degradation does not occur, the polymer remains effective as demonstrated in labs (supports the argument).
Because one extreme outcome invalidates the plan while the opposite extreme outcome preserves its likelihood of success, the evaluated factor is crucial for assessing argument validity.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Argument Validity via the Test of Variance
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 4Soru

In GMAT Critical Reasoning, evaluating the validity of an argument using the Test of Variance requires that applying two opposite extreme answers to a evaluation question (such as 'yes' and 'no') produces opposite impacts on the strength of the conclusion.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True. The Test of Variance dictates that a key evaluation question must yield opposing logical effects (strengthening vs. weakening) when tested with opposite extreme responses.
The statement accurately summarizes the fundamental rule of the Test of Variance, where opposing extreme outcomes must exert opposite logical forces on the conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Understand the core mechanism of evaluating argument validity.
To evaluate whether an argument's conclusion holds, one must identify missing information or assumptions that determine the argument's success.
The validity of an argument depends on whether key underlying conditions are met.
2
Apply the Test of Variance method.
Test both extreme logical answers (e.g., 100% vs 0%, or Yes vs No) to the proposed question.
If one extreme strengthens the conclusion and the other extreme weakens it, the question directly tests the argument's validity.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Argument Validity and Test of Variance
Soru 5Soru

A regional agricultural board plans to encourage commercial fruit orchard operators to replace conventional synthetic pesticide sprays with a newly developed biological control agent consisting of predatory mites. Because extensive field trials demonstrated that these predatory mites effectively eliminate target pest insects without producing any chemical runoff into adjacent waterways, board officials claim that widespread adoption of the mites will result in a significant net reduction of toxic chemical contamination in the region's river ecosystem. Which of the following would be most useful to investigate in order to evaluate the validity of the agricultural board's claim?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Whether fruit orchard operators who adopt the predatory mites will need to apply secondary chemical fungicides to protect the mite population from naturally occurring fungal pathogens.

Cevap

Determining whether orchard operators who adopt the predatory mites must apply secondary chemical fungicides to safeguard the mites from fungal pathogens is most useful to evaluate the argument.
The correct answer provides the key information required to assess whether replacing conventional pesticides with predatory mites truly achieves a net reduction in water contamination. Under the Test of Variance, if orchard operators must spray secondary chemical fungicides to protect the mites, those fungicides could introduce new toxic runoff into the river ecosystem, thereby undermining the conclusion. Conversely, if no secondary chemical applications are required, the adoption of predatory mites will successfully reduce overall chemical runoff into the river.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Deconstruct the argument structure into premise and conclusion.
Premise: Predatory mites eliminate pest insects without generating chemical runoff. Conclusion: Replacing synthetic pesticides with predatory mites will yield a net reduction in toxic chemical contamination in the river ecosystem.
Identifying the author's logical leap reveals unstated assumptions regarding potential secondary chemical usage.
2
Identify the unstated assumption in the causal plan.
The argument assumes that adopting predatory mites will not necessitate any new chemical interventions that could introduce toxic runoff into the river.
If alternative chemical treatments are triggered by adopting the biological agent, total chemical runoff might not decrease.
3
Apply the Test of Variance to evaluate potential answers.
Testing extreme answers to the option regarding secondary chemical fungicides: If YES (fungicides are required), chemical runoff may remain high or increase (weakens conclusion). If NO (no fungicides required), chemical runoff will decrease as predicted (strengthens conclusion).
An option whose two opposite extreme responses yield opposite impacts on the conclusion is the decisive factor required to evaluate argument validity.

Anahtar Kavram

Test of Variance for Argument Evaluation
Soru 6Soru

A commercial airline plans to replace its current regional fleet with newer aircraft models that consume 25 percent less fuel per seat-mile, maintaining that this fleet transition will lower the airline's overall annual operating expenses. Consider the following assertion: 'Determining whether global jet fuel prices will rise or fall over the next five years represents a valid application of the Test of Variance to evaluate the argument's conclusion.' Is this assertion true or false?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: False

Cevap

The assertion is False. Evaluating jet fuel price trends fails the Test of Variance because opposite extreme outcomes (fuel prices rising vs. fuel prices falling) both result in lower fuel expenditures for the new fleet compared to the current fleet, rather than producing opposing impacts on the conclusion's validity.
The statement is false because applying opposite extremes to global fuel price movements (prices rising vs. prices falling) fails to produce opposite logical effects on the conclusion. In both extreme scenarios, an aircraft fleet that uses 25% less fuel per seat-mile will incur lower fuel costs than the existing fleet, thereby failing to test whether the cost-reduction plan succeeds or fails.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the argument's premise and conclusion
Premise: The new aircraft consume 25% less fuel per seat-mile than the current fleet. Conclusion: Replacing the current fleet with the new aircraft will lower overall annual operating expenses relative to keeping the current fleet.
Evaluating argument validity requires isolating the comparative claim being made between the proposed plan and the status quo.
2
Define the standard for the Test of Variance
Under the Test of Variance, a question validly evaluates an argument if and only if one extreme response strongly strengthens the conclusion and the opposite extreme response strongly weakens it.
The Test of Variance is the formal method used in Critical Reasoning to test whether an information gap is decisive to an argument's structural validity.
3
Test opposite extreme outcomes for global fuel price trends
Extreme 1 (Fuel prices double): The 25% fuel efficiency yields even larger absolute dollar savings for the new fleet over the old fleet (strengthens). Extreme 2 (Fuel prices drop by 80%): The new fleet still spends 25% less on fuel than the old fleet, maintaining lower operating costs relative to keeping the old fleet (still strengthens).
Evaluating extreme values demonstrates whether the variable flips the logical standing of the conclusion.
4
Determine the truth value of the assertion
Because both extreme answers lead to the same logical outcome (the new fleet remains cheaper to operate than the old fleet), testing fuel price trends does not produce opposite impacts. Consequently, claiming that this variable represents a valid application of the Test of Variance is False.
Failing to produce opposing logical effects violates the core requirement of the Test of Variance.

Anahtar Kavram

The Test of Variance requires that opposite extreme answers to an evaluative question yield opposite logical impacts on an argument's conclusion. Variables that shift baseline and proposed options proportionally fail this test because they do not alter the relative validity of the argument.
Soru 7Soru

To reduce urban air pollution and traffic congestion, the municipality of Ardenville plans to construct a light-rail line connecting its dense outer suburbs to the commercial downtown core. City planners argue that because traveling by light rail generates significantly fewer carbon emissions per passenger-mile than driving a private automobile, building the light-rail system will lead to a net decrease in Ardenville's total commuter-related carbon emissions over the next decade.

Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in evaluating the validity of the city planners' argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Whether a substantial proportion of the projected light-rail passengers will consist of individuals who currently commute by walking or cycling rather than by driving private automobiles.

Cevap

Determining whether a substantial proportion of projected light-rail passengers previously walked or cycled rather than drove private automobiles is most useful for evaluating the argument.
The correct answer directly tests the core assumption of the argument using the Test of Variance. The planners claim that total carbon emissions will fall because light rail emits less per passenger-mile than private cars. However, if the new ridership is drawn primarily from people who currently produce zero emissions by walking or biking, adding a light-rail system will add new emissions to the environment, causing total emissions to increase. Conversely, if riders are drawn almost entirely from car commuters, total emissions will fall. Because extreme answers to this question yield opposite outcomes for the argument's validity, it is the crucial information to determine.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Deconstruct the argument structure
Premise: Light rail produces fewer emissions per passenger-mile than private automobiles. Conclusion: Constructing a light-rail system will decrease Ardenville's total commuter-related emissions.
Identifying the logic leap between relative emissions per passenger-mile and total net emissions.
2
Identify the unstated assumption
The argument assumes that light-rail riders will primarily be drawn from high-emission private automobile drivers, not zero-emission pedestrians or cyclists.
If riders shift from zero-emission modes to light rail, overall emissions will rise despite the light rail being cleaner than automobiles.
3
Apply the Test of Variance to the correct option
Answering 'Yes' to whether riders come from walking/cycling undermines the conclusion (emissions increase). Answering 'No' supports the conclusion (emissions decrease).
Opposite extreme answers produce opposite impacts on the validity of the conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Argument Validity and Test of Variance
Soru 8Soru

A municipal public transit authority plans to address its operational deficit by installing automated turnstile gates at all underground metro stations and laying off all human ticket inspectors. The authority's financial analysts claim that because the annual maintenance cost of the automated gates will be significantly less than the total annual salaries of the inspectors, implementing this plan is guaranteed to decrease the authority's net operating deficit in its first year. Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in order to evaluate the validity of the financial analysts' conclusion?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Whether passenger fare evasion is likely to increase significantly following the removal of human ticket inspectors

Cevap

Determining whether passenger fare evasion is likely to increase significantly following the removal of human ticket inspectors is most useful for evaluating the argument.
The correct option addresses an unstated financial variable: revenue from ticket sales. Operating deficit equals operating expenses minus revenue. The premises establish that one category of expenses (maintenance) is lower than another (salaries). However, if replacing human inspectors with automated gates leads to higher fare evasion, the resulting loss in ticket revenue could outweigh the net expense savings. Applying the Test of Variance: if fare evasion increases significantly, the plan will fail to decrease the deficit; if fare evasion does not increase, the plan will succeed. Because extreme answers produce opposite impacts on the conclusion's validity, this information is critical.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Deconstruct the argument structure
Premise: Automated gate annual maintenance costs are significantly lower than total annual inspector salaries. Conclusion: Installing gates and laying off inspectors is guaranteed to decrease the net operating deficit in the first year.
The conclusion relies on the assumption that salary savings minus maintenance costs represents the total net financial impact of the policy change.
2
Identify the unstated logical gap
The argument considers expenses (salaries vs. maintenance) but completely ignores revenue impacts (ticket sales and fare enforcement).
Net operating deficit is calculated as Total Operating Expenses minus Total Revenue. Any change affecting revenue directly impacts the deficit.
3
Apply the Test of Variance to the evaluating question
If fare evasion increases significantly without human inspectors, the revenue lost from unpaid fares could easily exceed the net salary savings, causing the net operating deficit to increase (weakening the conclusion). Conversely, if fare evasion does not increase, the net cost savings will reduce the deficit as claimed (strengthening the conclusion).
The opposite extreme answers to this question yield opposite effects on the validity of the analysts' conclusion, confirming it as the correct evaluation criteria.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Argument Validity and Test of Variance
Soru 9Soru

Consider the following argument: An agricultural biotechnology firm plans to market a automated seed-analysis device to commercial grain farmers. The firm predicts that launching this device will significantly increase its annual operating profits because the device reduces sample processing time by 50 percent, allowing farmers to test twice as many seeds in a single day without incurring additional labor costs.

Evaluating the following statement: Determining whether commercial grain farmers currently experience a bottleneck in seed testing that restricts their total volume of seed purchases is a relevant test of variance for evaluating the validity of the firm's profit prediction.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

The statement is True. Evaluating whether farmers currently face a testing bottleneck passes the Test of Variance because opposite answers directly strengthen or weaken the conclusion that the device will increase operating profits.
The statement is correct because the proposed criterion directly satisfies the Test of Variance. If farmers are currently bottlenecked by testing speed, doubling speed creates real economic value and drives sales, strengthening the conclusion. If farmers have no unfulfilled testing demand, extra speed provides no incentive to purchase, weakening the conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Deconstruct the argument structure
Premise: The new device reduces processing time by 50%, enabling farmers to test twice as many seeds at no extra labor cost. Conclusion: Marketing this device will significantly increase the firm's annual operating profits.
Identifying the link between the mechanism (higher processing capacity) and the outcome (increased profit) exposes the underlying assumption of market demand.
2
Apply the Test of Variance to the proposed evaluation criterion
Evaluate extreme outcome 1 (Yes, a bottleneck exists): Farmers need more capacity, so faster testing leads to increased device adoption and sales, supporting higher profits. Evaluate extreme outcome 2 (No, no bottleneck exists): Farmers already test all necessary seeds, so faster testing yields no added commercial value or extra sales, defeating the profit expectation.
The Test of Variance assesses whether opposite extreme answers to a question produce opposing impacts on the conclusion's logical strength.
3
Determine statement truth value
Since the proposed question produces opposite evaluative outcomes, it is a valid and crucial factor in assessing argument validity.
A factor that differentiates between a viable financial plan and an ineffective one is inherently relevant to evaluating argument validity.

Anahtar Kavram

Test of Variance in Evaluating Argument Validity
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Soru 10Soru

A municipal water authority plans to install automated acoustic leak detectors along its primary underground distribution pipeline network. City officials calculate that detecting subterranean micro-leaks early will save millions of gallons of treated water annually, thereby reducing overall water purification and pumping costs by significantly more than the installation and maintenance expense of the sensors. Therefore, city officials conclude that implementing this sensor network will increase the municipal water utility's net annual operating budget surplus.

Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the validity of the argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Whether subterranean vibrations from surface vehicle traffic frequently trigger false alarm signals in the sensors that require manual on-site inspection by technicians.

Cevap

Determining whether ambient traffic vibrations trigger frequent false alarms that require costly manual inspections by utility technicians is the most useful factor for evaluating the argument's validity.
The correct answer provides a critical unknown operational variable. If subterranean traffic vibrations cause frequent false positives, utility technicians must be dispatched to manually verify non-existent leaks, introducing substantial unanticipated labor and inspection costs. If these secondary costs exceed the net purification and pumping savings, the net operating budget surplus will decrease rather than increase. Conversely, if false alarms rarely occur, the projected financial surplus remains intact. Because opposite answers to this question produce opposite impacts on the viability of the plan, it is the most decisive factor for evaluating the argument's validity.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Deconstruct the argument structure into premises and conclusion
Premise: Acoustic sensors save water, cutting purification/pumping costs by an amount greater than sensor purchase/maintenance cost. Conclusion: Implementing the sensor network will increase the utility's net annual operating budget surplus.
Evaluating validity requires identifying the logical gap between the stated cost savings and the final net budget outcome.
2
Identify the unstated assumption in the financial projection
The argument assumes that sensor purchase and routine maintenance are the only significant new costs introduced by the program.
If hidden or auxiliary operational costs arise from operating the system, total costs might exceed savings.
3
Apply the Test of Variance to evaluate potential evaluation questions
Testing extreme outcomes for false alarm inspection costs: If YES (false alarms are frequent and expensive to inspect), total costs rise and net surplus drops (weakens argument). If NO (false alarms are rare/inexpensive), net surplus increases as projected (strengthens argument).
A valid evaluation criteria must produce opposite impacts on the argument's conclusion when answered at opposite extreme ends of the spectrum.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Argument Validity & Test of Variance
Tahmini Süre:1m 40s
Soru 11Soru

Consider the following business plan argument:

A commercial bakery plans to replace standard white flour with a newly developed high-fiber wheat flour across all its bread product lines. The bakery's management reasons that because health-conscious consumers are willing to pay a 25% premium for high-fiber products, making this change will significantly boost the company's net profits over the coming year.

Match each evaluation question regarding the argument's validity on the left with the correct variance analysis outcome on the right.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Whether the unit cost of sourcing high-fiber flour substantially exceeds the cost of standard white flour.
Whether traditional bread buyers will reduce their total purchase volume due to the altered taste and texture of high-fiber bread.
Whether rival regional bakeries already offer high-fiber bread at standard non-premium pricing.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

Each evaluation question is paired with its Test of Variance outcomes: flour sourcing costs determine whether profit margins widen or shrink based on expense structure; traditional buyer volume response determines whether unit price increases compensate for lost volume; competitor pricing determines market willingness to accept a price premium.
The correct pairings accurately demonstrate the Test of Variance for Critical Reasoning argument evaluation. Each question on the left introduces a critical factor (sourcing costs, consumer purchasing volume, competitive pricing), and the corresponding match on the right illustrates how extreme YES/NO answers to that question shift the argument between being strengthened and being weakened.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the central conclusion and key premises of the argument.
Conclusion: Replacing standard flour with high-fiber flour will significantly boost net profits. Premises: Consumers pay a 25% premium for high-fiber products.
Evaluating validity requires determining what missing factors could cause the conclusion to hold or fail.
2
Apply the Test of Variance to each proposed evaluation question by testing extreme opposite answers (YES vs. NO).
For flour cost (left_1): High cost (YES) reduces margins, low cost (NO) preserves gains. Matches cost outcome (right_2). For buyer behavior (left_2): Volume drop (YES) negates unit price gain, volume retention (NO) yields full profit. Matches volume outcome (right_1). For competitor pricing (left_3): Cheaper rivals (YES) block premium pricing, no rivals (NO) allows premium pricing. Matches competition outcome (right_3).
The Test of Variance proves an evaluation factor is valid when opposite answers produce opposing effects on the argument's conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Argument Validity and Test of Variance
Soru 12Soru

A wildlife conservation agency plans to introduce a native predatory bird, the peregrine falcon, into a coastal metropolitan area to control the rapidly growing population of feral pigeons. Conservationists argue that because feral pigeons make up over 80 percent of the falcon's natural diet in comparable habitats, this introduction will significantly reduce the city's pigeon population without threatening indigenous songbird species.

Which of the following questions would be most useful to evaluate the validity of the conservationists' argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Whether feral pigeons in the metropolitan area nest predominantly in architectural niches that prevent hunting falcons from capturing them.

Cevap

Evaluating whether feral pigeons nest in architectural niches inaccessible to falcons is most useful because it directly tests the feasibility of falcon predation on pigeons versus songbirds.
The correct answer provides a critical factor whose two extreme outcomes produce opposite effects on the argument. If urban architecture protects pigeons from falcon attacks, falcons will fail to suppress pigeon numbers and may switch to preying on local songbirds, invalidating the argument. Conversely, if architecture does not hinder falcons, they can prey on pigeons as expected, validating the argument.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Deconstruct the argument structure.
Premise: Pigeons make up over 80% of falcons' diet in comparable habitats. Conclusion: Introducing falcons will reduce urban pigeon populations without threatening native songbirds.
Identifying the logic gap between dietary preferences in natural habitats and hunting outcomes in an urban environment.
2
Apply the Test of Variance to the potential evaluation questions.
Testing extreme 'Yes' and 'No' answers to the option regarding inaccessible nesting niches reveals opposite impacts on the conclusion.
If pigeons are inaccessible, falcons cannot prey on them and may prey on songbirds instead; if pigeons are accessible, the plan works as intended.

Anahtar Kavram

Test of Variance for Argument Validity
Evaluating Argument Validity and Test of Variance Alıştırma Soruları — GMAT | Examkin