Critical Reasoning: Argument Structure and Roles

88 soru

Soru 1Soru

Many urban planners argue that expanding municipal light rail systems inevitably reduces traffic congestion in suburban corridors. However, a recent comprehensive study revealed that suburban commuters rarely shift from private automobiles to light rail unless parking fees in urban business districts increase significantly. Consequently, proposing light rail expansion without simultaneous adjustments to municipal parking pricing will fail to relieve suburban traffic. Implementing higher parking fees will incentivize a sufficient number of commuters to adopt public transit, thereby achieving the desired reduction in highway congestion.

In the argument above, what are the respective roles played by the two boldfaced portions?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The first is evidence cited to challenge a position that the argument opposes; the second provides a rationale for a key condition necessary for the proposed solution to succeed.

Cevap

The option stating that the first bolded portion is evidence cited to challenge a position that the argument opposes, and the second provides a rationale for a key condition necessary for the proposed solution to succeed.
The correct option accurately evaluates both bolded statements: the first bolded statement presents empirical study findings that counter the claim of urban planners (a position the author opposes), while the second bolded statement explains the mechanism by which higher parking fees achieve reduced highway congestion, functioning as a supporting rationale for the essential condition identified by the author.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the overall argument structure and identify the author's main conclusion.
The argument begins with an opposing view ('Many urban planners argue...'). The author's main conclusion is that proposing light rail expansion without adjusting parking fees will fail to relieve traffic.
Establishing the main conclusion enables accurate classification of surrounding supporting statements.
2
Determine the functional role of the first bolded statement.
The first bolded statement presents study findings demonstrating that commuters do not switch to light rail unless parking fees rise. This evidence directly undermines the urban planners' traditional view and supports the author's conclusion.
The contrastive transition 'However' signals that the study evidence refutes the initial position.
3
Determine the functional role of the second bolded statement.
The second bolded statement explains why raising parking fees works—by incentivizing commuters to adopt public transit—thereby justifying the condition required for transit success.
It provides the underlying mechanism/rationale for why parking fee adjustments are essential.
4
Match the structural analysis to the correct option.
The option identifying the first statement as evidence challenging an opposed position and the second statement as a rationale for a key condition is correct.
It captures the exact logical relationship of both bolded statements to the argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Analyzing Bolded Statement Roles in Critical Reasoning
Soru 2Soru

To mitigate urban heat island effects, municipal planners in Oakhaven proposed planting deciduous trees along major commercial corridors. Critics argued that winter leaf drops would significantly increase sidewalk maintenance costs for local business owners. However, a comprehensive study of similar mid-sized cities revealed that commercial corridors with dense tree canopies consistently experience an eight percent boost in winter foot traffic, generating retail sales revenues that far exceed seasonal street sweeping expenses. Therefore, implementing the tree-planting initiative will yield a net financial gain for corridor merchants.

Which of the following best describes the function of the claim that commercial corridors with dense tree canopies consistently experience an eight percent boost in winter foot traffic?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It provides factual evidence offered to support the author's ultimate conclusion that the initiative will be financially advantageous.

Cevap

The statement functions as factual evidence supporting the main conclusion that the initiative will yield a net financial gain for merchants.
The statement about the eight percent boost in winter foot traffic provides explicit empirical evidence demonstrating how merchant revenues will rise. This evidence is used directly by the author to justify the final conclusion that the initiative will result in a net financial benefit.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The final sentence contains the main conclusion: implementing the tree-planting initiative will yield a net financial gain for corridor merchants.
The conclusion indicator 'Therefore' introduces the author's primary claim.
2
Analyze the role of the target claim within the overall logical flow.
The target claim reports data from a study of similar cities showing an 8 percent boost in winter foot traffic.
This finding explains why additional retail revenues will outweigh maintenance costs, providing the essential premise that justifies the conclusion.
3
Evaluate the option choices to select the accurate structural description.
The correct description recognizes the claim as factual evidence supporting the primary conclusion.
The claim serves as a premise rather than background, a main conclusion, an intermediate conclusion, or a counterargument.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Premises and Structural Evidence
Soru 3Soru

Many urban planners argue that expanding municipal bus networks is the most effective strategy for reducing downtown traffic congestion. However, recent data from several mid-sized cities indicates that bus route expansions primarily attract previous pedestrians rather than drivers. Therefore, municipal governments seeking to reduce downtown traffic should invest in dedicated bicycle infrastructure rather than expanding bus networks.

Which of the following best expresses the main conclusion of the argument above?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Municipal governments aiming to decrease downtown traffic congestion ought to prioritize investments in dedicated bicycle infrastructure over bus network expansion.

Cevap

Municipal governments aiming to decrease downtown traffic congestion ought to prioritize investments in dedicated bicycle infrastructure over bus network expansion.
The correct answer accurately restates the author's main recommendation, which is introduced by the conclusion indicator 'Therefore.' The author uses evidence regarding pedestrian usage patterns to argue that funds should be directed toward bicycle infrastructure rather than bus network expansion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the structure of the argument
Identify background context ('urban planners argue...'), counter-evidence ('recent data... indicates...'), and the main conclusion signal ('Therefore...').
Tracking structural pivot words and conclusion indicators reveals the author's main position.
2
Isolate the ultimate claim
The final sentence ('Therefore, municipal governments seeking to reduce downtown traffic should invest in dedicated bicycle infrastructure rather than expanding bus networks') expresses the author's central argument.
The surrounding premises and evidence are provided specifically to justify this main recommendation.
3
Match the isolated conclusion with the answer choices
The statement that municipal governments aiming to decrease downtown traffic congestion ought to prioritize investments in dedicated bicycle infrastructure over bus network expansion directly captures the author's main conclusion.
It accurately restates the core recommendation without adding unstated claims or confusing supporting premises with the main argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Main Conclusions
Soru 4Soru

Recent legislation in a certain state mandates that all commercial buildings install automated energy-management systems. Local business owners claim that the upfront installation costs will force small retail stores into bankruptcy. However, state environmental regulators point out that the energy savings generated within the first six months typically exceed the initial setup costs.

In the argument above, the two bolded statements play which of the following roles?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The first is a position that the argument seeks to refute; the second is evidence provided to counter that position.

Cevap

The first bolded statement is a position that the argument seeks to refute, and the second is evidence provided to counter that position.
The correct response accurately identifies that the first bolded clause represents an objection to the new energy legislation, while the second bolded clause provides factual data cited to show why that objection is unfounded.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the structural role of the first bolded statement.
The statement presents the objection of business owners arguing that energy-management systems cause bankruptcy.
It establishes the counter-position that the rest of the passage attempts to undermine.
2
Analyze the pivot and the second bolded statement.
The transition 'However' signals a rebuttal, followed by the fact that six-month energy savings exceed setup costs.
This fact serves as supporting evidence used by regulators to defeat the business owners' objection.
3
Match both roles to the correct option choice.
The statement describing the first as an opposing position to refute and the second as countering evidence is correct.
It accurately captures both the opponent's stance and the author/regulator's counter-evidence.

Anahtar Kavram

Analyzing Bolded Statement Roles in Rebuttal Arguments
Soru 5Soru

To alleviate chronic water scarcity in arid agricultural regions, several regional authorities have introduced market-based water rights trading. Proponents contend that allowing farmers to sell unused allocations incentivizes water conservation and directs resources to high-value industrial uses. However, critics argue that unrestricted trading leads to 'water farming,' where investors purchase land purely to extract and export groundwater, permanently depleting local aquifers and undermining rural economies. Nonetheless, proponents maintain that proper regulatory caps on transfer volumes can prevent over-extraction while preserving economic efficiency.

In the argument above, the statement that unrestricted trading leads to 'water farming' functions in which of the following ways?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It introduces a counterargument that highlights a key drawback of unregulated trading, which the argument subsequently addresses with a proposed qualification.

Cevap

The statement functions as a counterargument highlighting a potential flaw of unrestricted trading, which the argument later addresses by mentioning regulatory caps.
The claim that unrestricted trading leads to 'water farming' is introduced by the contrastive transition 'However' and attributed to 'critics'. This clearly marks it as an opposing position (counterargument) to the proponents' opening argument. The passage then follows with 'Nonetheless,' where proponents address this objection by asserting that regulatory caps can prevent over-extraction. Therefore, the statement functions as a counterargument raising a vulnerability that the argument subsequently attempts to resolve.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the passage structure and transition indicators
The passage starts with a proposal (water rights trading) supported by proponents. The pivot word 'However' introduces critics who object via the 'water farming' claim. The pivot 'Nonetheless' follows with a counter-response regarding regulatory caps.
Tracking pivot words reveals shifts between supporting arguments, counterarguments, and rebuttals.
2
Identify the stance and role of the target claim
The statement about 'water farming' is attributed to critics arguing against unrestricted trading. It serves as an opposing position to the proponents' initial positive claim.
Determining who makes the claim establishes whether it is a premise, main conclusion, or counterargument.
3
Evaluate how the subsequent text relates to the target claim
The final sentence ('Nonetheless, proponents maintain...') offers a way to mitigate the 'water farming' problem using regulatory caps.
Understanding the context following a counterargument clarifies whether the argument accepts, refutes, or qualifies the counterargument.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Counterarguments and Opposing Positions
Tahmini Süre:1m 45s
Soru 6Soru

To prevent the degradation of 17th-century oil paintings, conservators in Florence recently introduced nitrogen-purged display cases. While skeptics argued that the initial installation costs would burden museum budgets, recent environmental monitoring confirms that these sealed enclosures reduce oxidative damage by over 80 percent, thereby eliminating the need for frequent, costly chemical restorations. Therefore, adopting nitrogen-purged enclosures is ultimately a cost-effective strategy for long-term art preservation.

Which of the following statements functions as the primary premise offered in support of the argument's main conclusion?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Environmental monitoring confirms that sealed enclosures reduce oxidative damage by over 80 percent, eliminating frequent chemical restorations.

Cevap

The statement confirming that sealed enclosures reduce oxidative damage by over 80 percent, thereby eliminating frequent chemical restorations, serves as the primary premise.
The claim that environmental monitoring confirms an 80 percent reduction in oxidative damage and eliminates frequent chemical restorations provides the essential factual evidence supporting the author's conclusion that nitrogen-purged enclosures are cost-effective.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The final sentence contains the main conclusion, signaled by 'Therefore': adopting nitrogen-purged enclosures is a cost-effective strategy for long-term art preservation.
Determining the main claim allows us to evaluate which statements provide logical support for it.
2
Analyze the structural role of each sentence in the passage.
Sentence 1 provides background context; the first clause of Sentence 2 presents a counterargument; the second clause of Sentence 2 provides empirical evidence of damage reduction and cost avoidance; Sentence 3 presents the conclusion.
Dissecting the argument structure differentiates supporting evidence from context and counterclaims.
3
Match the primary premise to the correct statement.
The finding that oxidative damage is reduced by over 80 percent and eliminates costly chemical restorations directly supports the conclusion regarding cost-effectiveness.
A premise is factual evidence offered to justify the conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Premises and Evidence
Soru 7Soru

Several agricultural cooperatives in the Pacific Northwest recently introduced microalgae-based soil conditioners to reduce reliance on synthetic fertilizers. Although skepticism persists regarding the initial processing costs of microalgae, extensive field trials conducted over three consecutive harvest cycles demonstrated a 22 percent increase in soil nitrogen retention without altering pH levels. Therefore, municipal agricultural boards should subsidize microalgae conditioning for smallholder farms to ensure long-term soil health.

Which of the following statements functions as the primary evidence supporting the author's main recommendation?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Field trials over three consecutive harvests demonstrated a 22 percent increase in soil nitrogen retention without altering pH levels.

Cevap

The statement detailing the field trials that demonstrated a 22 percent increase in soil nitrogen retention without altering pH levels functions as the primary premise supporting the recommendation.
The claim regarding the field trials provides the specific empirical data (a 22 percent increase in nitrogen retention) used to justify why municipal boards should provide subsidies for microalgae conditioning. Thus, it serves directly as the argument's primary supporting premise.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the structural components of the argument.
Identify the background context (cooperatives introducing conditioners), the counterargument/qualification (persisting skepticism over initial costs), the main premise (field trial results showing a 22 percent nitrogen retention increase), and the conclusion (boards should subsidize conditioning).
Deconstructing the argument allows for clear distinction between context, evidence, and conclusions.
2
Evaluate the functional role of the trial results statement.
Recognize that the 22 percent nitrogen retention data provides empirical backing for the claim that microalgae conditioning improves soil health effectively.
A premise is a factual claim or piece of evidence used directly to support a recommendation.
3
Select the option that accurately captures this premise.
Identify the option stating that field trials demonstrated a 22 percent increase in soil nitrogen retention without altering pH levels as the correct answer.
This option explicitly states the core evidence justifying the main conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Premises and Evidence
Soru 8Soru

In marine archaeology, underwater sonar mapping has traditionally been restricted to shallow coastal waters because deep-sea acoustic signals decay rapidly. Recently, oceanographers developed low-frequency sonar transducers that transmit data across immense oceanic depths without significant signal degradation. Some archaeologists argue that this technological breakthrough will immediately render deep-sea robotic excavations obsolete. However, sonar mapping only identifies surface anomalies on the seabed rather than excavating buried artifacts. Therefore, deep-sea robotic submersibles will remain essential for underwater archaeological retrieval.

In the argument presented, what role does the claim that underwater sonar mapping has traditionally been restricted to shallow coastal waters play?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It provides historical background information that sets up the context in which a new technological development emerged.

Cevap

The statement provides historical background information that sets up the context in which a new technological development emerged.
The claim regarding traditional sonar limitations describes historical context before the recent technological advancement. It does not act as evidence for or against the conclusion, but rather sets the stage for the narrative.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the passage structure to identify the role of each sentence.
Sentence 1 provides traditional context; Sentence 2 introduces new sonar technology; Sentence 3 presents an opposing conclusion; Sentence 4 gives the author's counter-premise; Sentence 5 gives the author's main conclusion.
Determining structural roles requires evaluating how each sentence relates to the main conclusion.
2
Evaluate the targeted statement's relationship to the rest of the argument.
The targeted statement establishes historical background conditions prior to the recent development of low-frequency sonar transducers.
Background statements establish facts or historical context necessary to understand the situation without directly supporting or refuting the main argument.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Background Information and Contextual Claims
Soru 9Soru

Historians of science often claim that the rapid adoption of early industrial machinery was driven primarily by shortages of skilled manual labor. However, recent archival evidence indicates that factory owners chose mechanized equipment largely to ensure standardized product quality rather than to cut labor headcount. Consequently, the traditional view oversimplifies the economic motivations behind nineteenth-century industrialization. Although early machines did occasionally reduce the need for specialized artisans, the primary financial incentive remained product uniformity.

In the argument above, the two boldface portions play which of the following roles?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The first is a position that the argument seeks to refute; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.

Cevap

The correct answer states that the first boldface portion is a position that the argument seeks to refute, while the second boldface portion is the main conclusion of the argument.
The correct answer accurately identifies the role of both statements: the first boldface statement introduces an established historical claim that the passage proceeds to counter with archival evidence, and the second boldface statement asserts the main conclusion reached by the author.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first boldface portion within context
The statement 'the rapid adoption of early industrial machinery was driven primarily by shortages of skilled manual labor' represents a historical claim introduced by 'Historians... often claim'. The transition word 'However' immediately following it indicates that the author disputes this claim.
Identifying transition words helps establish whether a claim represents the author's voice or an opposing viewpoint.
2
Analyze the second boldface portion within context
The statement 'the traditional view oversimplifies the economic motivations behind nineteenth-century industrialization' is introduced by the conclusion indicator 'Consequently' and represents the ultimate claim the author derives from the archival evidence.
Conclusion indicators signal the central thesis that the surrounding premises aim to justify.
3
Synthesize the relationship between the two claims
The argument refutes the traditional historical claim (first boldface) in order to establish its main conclusion (second boldface).
Matching the structural relationship to the correct option confirms the accurate description of argument flow.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Argumentative Roles of Claims and Boldface Statements
Soru 10Soru

Dr. Vance: To protect rare historical manuscripts from ambient humidity, the central archive should immediately install industrial dehumidifiers. Just as sealed glass display cases preserve delicate oil paintings in museums by maintaining a rigid microclimate, controlling humidity across our entire facility will ensure the long-term survival of these paper artifacts.

Dr. Kim: However, sealed glass cases regulate tiny, enclosed volumes of air, whereas industrial dehumidifiers in vast facilities draw in variable external air, creating localized moisture spikes that accelerate paper warping.

Which of the following best describes the method of reasoning used by Dr. Kim in responding to Dr. Vance's proposal?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Demonstrating that an analogy relied upon to justify a policy fails because of a critical difference in operating scale and mechanism.

Cevap

Demonstrating that an analogy relied upon to justify a policy fails because of a critical difference in operating scale and mechanism.
Dr. Vance attempts to justify a facility-wide humidity control policy by drawing a direct analogy to sealed museum display cases. Dr. Kim counters this argument by establishing a critical distinction between the two scenarios: sealed cases control tiny, isolated air volumes, whereas facility dehumidifiers process fluctuating ambient air in large spaces. By demonstrating that this difference in scale and mechanism produces harmful moisture spikes, Dr. Kim shows that the underlying analogy fails to support the proposed action.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the first speaker's argument structure
Dr. Vance proposes installing industrial dehumidifiers for an entire facility, relying on an analogy to sealed glass cases that preserve paintings.
Identifying the premise-argument structure and the comparative analogy is essential to understanding the strategy being attacked.
2
Analyze the second speaker's rebuttal technique
Dr. Kim points out that sealed glass cases operate on small enclosed volumes, whereas industrial dehumidifiers operate in large open spaces with fluctuating outside air, leading to moisture spikes.
This establishes that Dr. Kim is identifying a key functional breakdown between the source case (glass cases) and the target case (facility-wide system).
3
Select the choice that abstractly describes this logical strategy
The correct response accurately captures that Dr. Kim refutes the proposal by showing why the drawn analogy fails at a fundamental operational level.
GMAT Method of Reasoning questions require matching specific argument steps to abstract structural descriptions.

Anahtar Kavram

Method of Reasoning: Invalidating an Analogy via Structural Differences
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 11Soru

Agricultural technology firms have recently advocated for nationwide tax credits to promote biochar application in commercial farming, contending that soil carbon storage is essential for meeting climate targets. However, verifying long-term carbon sequestration in varied soil microbiomes remains technically imprecise and prone to significant measurement error. Consequently, issuing standardized credits based on current measurement protocols will inevitably lead to overcrediting unverified carbon sinks. Therefore, the government should defer the implementation of biochar-based carbon tax credits until higher-precision auditing technologies are commercially deployed.

Based on the passage above, match each numbered claim on the left to its exact structural role in the argument on the right.

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Soil carbon storage is essential for meeting climate targets.
Verifying long-term carbon sequestration in varied soil microbiomes remains technically imprecise and prone to significant measurement error.
Issuing standardized credits based on current measurement protocols will inevitably lead to overcrediting unverified carbon sinks.
The government should defer the implementation of biochar-based carbon tax credits until higher-precision auditing technologies are commercially deployed.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The statement regarding the inevitable overcrediting of unverified carbon sinks functions as the intermediate (subsidiary) conclusion. It is inferred from the premise concerning measurement imprecision and directly supports the main policy recommendation to defer tax credits.
The argument builds a multi-tiered logical structure. The statement describing technical measurement errors serves as an un-derived factual premise. From this premise, the author infers that issuing credits based on current protocols will lead to overcrediting (the intermediate conclusion). That intermediate conclusion then serves as the direct logical support for the main conclusion, which recommends deferring the tax credits until better technology exists.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the passage
The final sentence ('Therefore, the government should defer...') is the author's ultimate normative recommendation and primary claim.
It is signaled by the conclusion indicator 'Therefore' and expresses the final policy stance that the entire argument seeks to prove.
2
Locate raw empirical premises that do not depend on prior claims
The statement that verification in soil microbiomes 'remains technically imprecise' acts as an underlying factual premise.
This claim is presented as a foundational factual observation without any supporting sub-arguments within the text.
3
Analyze the claim linking the factual premise to the main conclusion
The assertion that standardized credits 'will inevitably lead to overcrediting' is derived from technical imprecision ('Consequently') and provides the rationale for deferring policy.
Because it acts both as a conclusion relative to the measurement error premise and as a premise supporting the final deferral recommendation, it is the intermediate (subsidiary) conclusion.
4
Categorize remaining contextual claims
The claim that soil carbon storage is essential for climate targets represents background context detailing the ag-tech firms' stance.
It provides the backdrop against which the author presents a caveat and counter-proposal.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Intermediate and Subsidiary Conclusions
Soru 12Soru

Historically, municipal governments relied on property taxes to fund public transit expansion, operating under the assumption that infrastructure investment directly drives commercial real estate appreciation. However, recent economic analyses reveal that modern commercial enterprises prioritize digital infrastructure over physical proximity to transit hubs. Therefore, urban economists argue that issuing new municipal bonds to expand city bus lines will yield diminishing returns for the local tax base. Since property values have already stagnated across commercial sectors, funding transit expansion through property tax increases will burden local businesses without generating the anticipated economic growth.

In the argument presented, the bolded statement plays which of the following roles?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It provides contextual background information about a traditional practice and belief, establishing the situation that the argument's main conclusion evaluates.

Cevap

The bolded statement provides contextual background information about a traditional practice and belief, establishing the situation that the argument's main conclusion evaluates.
The correct answer accurately describes the structural role of the bolded statement. The first sentence presents historical context regarding how cities funded transit and what they assumed about real estate value. This historical context sets up the scenario that the author and urban economists evaluate in the rest of the passage.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the structural components of the passage
Identified four key parts: (1) Bolded statement = historical context/assumption, (2) Pivot premise = modern commercial priority on digital infrastructure, (3) Main conclusion = bus line expansion will yield diminishing returns, (4) Supporting premise = property taxes will burden businesses.
Deconstructing the argument structure allows precise classification of each sentence's function.
2
Evaluate the specific role of the bolded statement
The bolded statement describes how municipalities traditionally operated and what they assumed. It sets the stage for the argument but does not serve as evidence for why expanding bus lines today is a bad investment.
Background information establishes circumstances or historical beliefs that frame the main argument without acting as an active premise or conclusion.
3
Match the identified structural role with the option choices
The statement functions as background context establishing the situation evaluated by the conclusion.
This description accurately aligns with GMAT Critical Reasoning terminology for non-premise background claims.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Background Information and Contextual Claims
Soru 13Soru

Consider the following argument:

'Pharmaceutical executives contend that extending patent exclusivity periods is essential to funding high-risk biomedical research. However, public health economists observe that protracted exclusivity inflates healthcare expenditures without demonstrably increasing the rate of novel drug discovery. Although industry advocates argue that reduced patent lifespans would deter capital investment in critical therapeutic areas, comparative cross-national data demonstrate that robust public-venture funding effectively offsets private investment declines. Therefore, lengthening patent monopolies is an inefficient strategy for fostering pharmaceutical innovation.'

Which of the following correctly matches each claim from the passage with its structural role in the overall argument?

Soldaki öğeye tıklayın, sonra eşleşen sağdaki öğeye tıklayın

Öğeler

Extending patent exclusivity periods is essential to funding high-risk biomedical research.
Protracted exclusivity inflates healthcare expenditures without demonstrably increasing the rate of novel drug discovery.
Reduced patent lifespans would deter capital investment in critical therapeutic areas.
Lengthening patent monopolies is an inefficient strategy for fostering pharmaceutical innovation.

Eşleşmeler

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap

The correct pairings align each statement from the passage to its precise structural function: the executive assertion matches the primary opposing position; the economist observation matches the empirical counter-evidence; the advocate warning matches the secondary defensive counter-claim; and the final sentence matches the author's main conclusion.
Each statement is correctly mapped based on its logical relationship within the text: the executive assertion serves as the primary opposing position; the economist observation supplies empirical counter-evidence against it; the advocate assertion introduces a defensive counter-claim; and the final sentence expresses the author's main conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the passage structure and identify key transition words.
Pivot words such as 'However', 'Although', and 'Therefore' signal shifts between opposing positions, counterarguments, defensive claims, and the main conclusion.
Recognizing structural pivots is essential for accurately mapping the logical relationships between distinct claims in complex Critical Reasoning passages.
2
Identify the main target position and the author's main conclusion.
The executive contention introduces the primary opposing position, while the final sentence preceded by 'Therefore' states the author's ultimate main conclusion.
The passage opens by framing the industry stance it intends to evaluate and ends by declaring the author's final judgment.
3
Distinguish between the two distinct counter-claims presented in the middle of the argument.
The economist observation provides evidence contradicting the executive claim, whereas the advocate warning serves as a defensive counterargument to preserve exclusivity against economic criticisms.
Differentiating an empirical counter-finding from a defensive counter-claim is critical when evaluating multi-viewpoint arguments.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Counterarguments and Opposing Positions
Soru 14Soru

Conservators at a prominent museum have long maintained that installing centralized precision-humidity control systems in historic buildings is essential for preventing the degradation of centuries-old wooden panel paintings. However, a recent study of vintage panel deterioration shows no significant difference in structural decay between paintings housed in high-tech climate-controlled rooms and those kept in traditional buildings with simple passive ventilation. Because wooden panels naturally adjust to gradual seasonal fluctuations without suffering stress fractures, the costly replacement of traditional ventilation systems with complex environmental controls is an unnecessary expenditure for preserving these artworks.

Which of the following best describes the roles played by the two bolded statements in the argument?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The first presents findings used to challenge a traditional position; the second is the main conclusion drawn by the argument.

Cevap

The correct option identifies the first statement as findings used to challenge a traditional position and the second statement as the main conclusion of the argument.
The correct answer accurately characterizes the flow of logic. The argument begins with a traditional opinion held by museum conservators. The first bolded portion delivers study results demonstrating that high-tech systems produce no better results than traditional passive ventilation, thereby directly challenging the conservators' view. The second bolded portion is the final judgment reached by the author—that expensive system replacement is an unnecessary expenditure.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the main argument structure and main conclusion
The argument opens by describing a long-held belief by conservators, introduces new study findings after 'However', provides an explanatory premise, and concludes that upgrading ventilation systems is unnecessary.
Identifying the author's core claim establishes the ultimate point of the passage.
2
Determine the structural role of the first bolded statement
The first bolded statement presents empirical study findings showing no difference in decay, which undermines the conservators' claim that high-tech systems are essential.
Transition words like 'However' signal that this finding challenges the previous view.
3
Determine the structural role of the second bolded statement
The second bolded statement states that replacing traditional systems is an unnecessary expenditure, which is the main conclusion justified by the study findings and natural adjustment mechanism.
This is the ultimate claim that the author is advocating in the passage.

Anahtar Kavram

Boldface Argument Structure Analysis
Soru 15Soru

Executive board members at a major technology firm maintain that purchasing comprehensive cybersecurity insurance is an unnecessary expense, contending that internal cash reserves are sufficient to absorb potential breach penalties. However, recent empirical studies demonstrate that the indirect financial damage of a major breach—including reputational harm and lost customer lifetime value—routinely exceeds a firm’s total liquid reserves by several orders of magnitude. Furthermore, insurance underwriters require continuous security audits that proactively identify software vulnerabilities before exploit incidents occur. Therefore, relying exclusively on internal financial reserves to manage enterprise cyber risk is an unsound management strategy.

In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The first is evidence presented to undermine the position held by the board members; the second is the author's main conclusion.

Cevap

The first boldfaced statement provides factual evidence used to counter the board members' plan, while the second boldfaced statement serves as the author's main conclusion.
The correct answer accurately identifies the logical flow of the argument: the author uses empirical data regarding indirect breach costs (first bolded statement) to directly weaken the board members' claim, culminating in the final verdict that relying solely on reserves is unsound (second bolded statement, the main conclusion).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the structural position of the first bolded statement.
The text preceding the first bolded statement presents the board's belief (reserves are sufficient). The pivot word 'However' introduces empirical evidence showing reserves are actually far smaller than breach costs.
This shows the first bolded statement functions as premise evidence opposing the board's stance.
2
Analyze the structural position of the second bolded statement.
The word 'Therefore' introduces the second bolded statement, taking the evidence provided and forming the final evaluation that relying on cash reserves is unsound.
This confirms the second bolded statement is the main conclusion of the passage.
3
Match structural roles to the options.
The option stating that the first is evidence undermining the board's position and the second is the main conclusion accurately describes both roles.
It correctly identifies premise evidence vs. main conclusion without misattributing author viewpoint.

Anahtar Kavram

Analyzing Bolded Statement Roles (Premise vs. Main Conclusion & Opposing Stance)
Soru 16Soru

To curb local air pollution, urban planners have advocated that the city municipal authority mandate all commercial delivery fleets to adopt zero-emission vehicles by the end of the decade. Industry representatives oppose the plan, claiming that the substantial capital expenditure required will bankrupt smaller logistics firms and disrupt urban supply chains. However, this objection relies on an incomplete picture of the policy package. The municipal authority has pledged to finance the installation of free fleet-charging hubs and provide low-interest loans specifically tailored for small operators. Consequently, the implementation of the mandate will not trigger the widespread failure of small logistics businesses.

In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: The first is a proposed policy that the argument defends against a specific objection; the second is evidence offered to demonstrate that the objection is unwarranted.

Cevap

The first bolded portion is a proposed policy that the argument defends against an objection, while the second bolded portion is evidence cited to show that the objection is unfounded.
The correct answer accurately characterizes both bolded statements. The first bolded statement presents the proposed mandate that forms the central subject of discussion; the author defends this mandate against an industry objection. The second bolded statement introduces explicit evidence regarding municipal funding and loans, demonstrating why the industry's financial objection is unfounded.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the main conclusion and overall structure of the argument.
The author concludes that the proposed mandate will not cause small logistics businesses to fail, contradicting the objection raised by industry representatives.
Identifying the author's ultimate conclusion provides the framework for assessing the function of each sentence.
2
Determine the role of the first bolded statement.
The first bolded statement describes the proposed mandate to adopt zero-emission vehicles, which industry representatives oppose but the author defends.
Understanding whether the author agrees with or opposes the first statement clarifies its functional role.
3
Determine the role of the second bolded statement.
The second bolded statement presents factual evidence (financing charging hubs and providing low-interest loans) that directly undermines the opponents' claim of financial hardship.
Evaluating how the second statement interacts with the opponents' claim shows that it acts as counter-evidence supporting the author's main conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Analyzing Bolded Statement Roles in Critical Reasoning
Soru 17Soru

Consider the following argument:

To reduce carbon emissions from commuter travel, the city council recently subsidized monthly public transit passes for residents. Since the subsidies were introduced, total sales of public transit passes have increased by 25 percent. Therefore, the subsidy program has successfully reduced carbon emissions from commuter travel in the city.

True or False: In the argument above, the statement 'total sales of public transit passes have increased by 25 percent' functions as a premise supporting the main conclusion.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

True. The statement functions as a premise because it provides empirical evidence used to support the author's main conclusion.
The statement 'total sales of public transit passes have increased by 25 percent' provides the empirical backing that the author uses to argue for the success of the subsidy program. Because it offers evidence in support of the conclusion, it functions as a premise.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The main conclusion is that the subsidy program has successfully reduced carbon emissions from commuter travel in the city.
This claim is introduced by the conclusion indicator 'Therefore' and represents the primary claim the author seeks to establish.
2
Determine the functional role of the target statement.
The statement presents factual data showing a 25 percent increase in public transit pass sales following the subsidies.
The author introduces this data specifically to offer evidence that the subsidy initiative led to increased transit adoption.
3
Evaluate whether the statement fits the definition of a premise.
Since the statement provides supporting evidence for the main conclusion, it is a premise.
A premise is a claim or piece of evidence offered in an argument to support a conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Premises and Evidence
Soru 18Soru

Consider the following argument:

A recent study of regional agricultural yields found that farms implementing automated drip-irrigation systems saw a 15 percent increase in crop output compared to farms using traditional flood-irrigation methods. Thus, modern technology adoption is the primary driver of agricultural efficiency in the region.

True or False: In the argument above, the claim that farms implementing automated drip-irrigation systems saw a 15 percent increase in crop output functions as a premise supporting the main conclusion.

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: True

Cevap

The statement is True. The specified claim provides factual, empirical evidence that directly supports the argument's main conclusion.
Evaluating the statement as True is correct because the referenced sentence reports specific study results that provide the evidentiary basis for the author's conclusion about technology adoption.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The main conclusion is 'thus, modern technology adoption is the primary driver of agricultural efficiency in the region.'
The structural indicator 'thus' signals the author's primary claim being established.
2
Analyze the structural role of the statement in question.
The statement 'farms implementing automated drip-irrigation systems saw a 15 percent increase in crop output' presents observational study data.
This empirical finding is offered to justify and validate the broader inference made in the conclusion.
3
Evaluate whether the statement functions as a premise.
Since the claim provides evidence for the conclusion rather than being inferred from other claims, it is a supporting premise.
Premises are claims offered as evidence or justification for a conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying premises as supporting factual evidence in an argument structure.
Soru 19Soru

Pharmaceutical firms often justify the high prices of innovative therapies by citing extensive research and development expenditures. However, because basic biomedical research is increasingly funded by public grants, private drug manufacturers actually bear a smaller fraction of upfront discovery costs than they claim. Consequently, the commercial risk associated with developing new medications has substantially declined over the past decade. It follows that regulatory authorities should cap the profit margins on treatments that rely heavily on publicly funded foundational science. Critics argue that such caps would disincentivize private investment, but this concern overlooks the fact that patent exclusivity periods already guarantee sufficient returns to attract capital.

In the argument above, the bolded statement plays which of the following roles?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: It is a subsidiary conclusion derived from evidence about public research funding, and it serves as a supporting premise for the author's primary recommendation.

Cevap

The bolded claim functions as a subsidiary (intermediate) conclusion derived from evidence about research funding, which in turn supports the main recommendation regarding profit margin caps.
The correct option accurately identifies the bolded statement as a subsidiary conclusion. The transition word 'Consequently' indicates that the claim (decline in commercial risk) is inferred from the preceding evidence regarding public grant funding. Furthermore, the subsequent sentence ('It follows that...') uses this decline in risk to justify the author's primary recommendation that regulatory authorities should cap profit margins.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Deconstruct the argument into its structural components.
Identified background claim (pharma justifies prices via R&D), premise evidence (public grants fund basic research, so private firms bear smaller upfront costs), intermediate claim (commercial risk has declined), main claim (regulatory authorities should cap profit margins), and counterargument rebuttal (critics' concerns are unfounded due to patent exclusivity).
Mapping the structural flow is essential to determine how claims relate to one another.
2
Analyze the relationship between the premise, the bolded statement, and the main conclusion.
The indicator word 'Consequently' signals that the bolded claim follows logically from the premise about public grant funding. The phrase 'It follows that' then introduces the main conclusion, which relies on the bolded claim.
A claim that receives support from premises and provides support to the ultimate conclusion is by definition an intermediate or subsidiary conclusion.
3
Evaluate the option choices against this structural role.
The option stating that it is a subsidiary conclusion derived from evidence about public research funding and serving as support for the primary recommendation exactly matches the identified role.
Ensures complete alignment with GMAT Critical Reasoning argument role taxonomy.

Anahtar Kavram

Intermediate (Subsidiary) Conclusions in Complex Arguments
Tahmini Süre:2m 0s
Soru 20Soru

While critics of municipal broadband networks contend that public investment inevitably depresses private telecom infrastructure expansion, recent fiscal audits from several mid-sized districts reveal that cities establishing utility-run fiber networks experienced a 40 percent surge in private fiber-optic deployments by commercial ISPs over five years. Because public fiber installations lower the initial capital expenditure of laying conduit in dense urban corridors, commercial providers can expand their local networks far more cost-effectively. Therefore, municipal broadband programs actually stimulate, rather than suppress, overall private telecommunications development.

In the argument above, which of the following statements functions as the primary underlying premise offered to support the main conclusion?

Cevabı ve açıklamayı göster

Cevap: Public fiber installations lower the initial capital expenditure of laying conduit in dense urban corridors.

Cevap

The statement that public fiber installations lower the initial capital expenditure of laying conduit in dense urban corridors.
The correct answer identifies the sentence beginning with 'Because public fiber installations lower...', which serves as the direct economic rationale for why commercial providers can expand cost-effectively. This logical bridge functions as the primary premise directly supporting the author's main conclusion that municipal broadband stimulates overall private telecom development.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Deconstruct the argument into its structural components.
Opposing view: critics contend public investment depresses private expansion. Empirical evidence: audits show a 40% surge in private deployments. Explanatory mechanism: public fiber lowers initial capital expenditure for conduit laying. Main conclusion: municipal broadband stimulates overall private development.
Identifying the functional role of each sentence is essential for isolating the core premise.
2
Distinguish between empirical observation evidence and the core analytical premise.
The 40% surge statistic is background observational evidence. The reduction in initial capital expenditure is the logical bridge/premise explaining why that surge occurred.
Premises directly supply the causal or logical rationale supporting the author's claim.
3
Match the identified core analytical premise with the correct option.
The option stating that public fiber installations lower initial capital expenditures corresponds exactly to the primary premise.
This claim answers why commercial ISPs are able to expand cost-effectively, directly underpinning the main conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Premises vs. Background Evidence and Conclusions
Sayfa 1 / 5Sonraki