What to expect on the gmat 2

Tham khảo tài liệu what to expect on the gmat 2, ngoại ngữ, anh ngữ phổ thông phục vụ nhu cầu học tập, nghiên cứu và làm việc hiệu quả
Nội dung trích xuất từ tài liệu:
What to expect on the gmat 2 – CRITICAL REASONING –c is a logical conclusion based on the passage. If Hanson’s sale price is $35, nearly twice the price for the samemerchandise from Sam’s, you will probably pay more for most items at Hanson’s. On the exam, you will also see questions where several conclusions can be drawn from a series of prem-ises, and you must determine which of the conclusions presented is not logical based on the evidence (prem-ises) provided. This was the case with question 9 from the pretest: 9. When romance novels were located in the back of the bookstore, they accounted for approximately 6% of total sales. Since we moved romance novels close to the front of the store and put several books on display, sales of romance novels have increased to 14% to 18% of total sales. All of the following conclusions can logically be drawn from this argument EXCEPT a. customers who bought one romance novel are likely to come back for another. b. customers are more likely to buy books located near the front of the bookstore than at the back. c. the display caught the interest of people who might not have otherwise purchased a romance novel. d. customers believe that bookstores put their best books near the front of the store. e. sales of romance novels may increase even more if the section were moved all the way to the front. To answer this question correctly, you must evaluate each option in light of the evidence. In this case,the only conclusion that does not logically follow from the premises is a. The significant increase in sales afterthe relocation of the books indicates that customers are more likely to buy books at the front of the store(choice b) and that the display may have caught the interest of people who might not otherwise purchase aromance novel (choice c). It is also logical to conclude that sales would further increase if the books weremoved even farther toward the front of the store (choice e). Choices b and e and the increase in sales all sug-gest that customers believe the best books are near the front of the store (choice d). The only conclusion thatcannot logically be drawn from this scenario is that customers will come back to purchase more romance nov-els (choice a). There is no evidence here for this conclusion; nothing in the data indicates repeat purchasesfor customers. E valuating ArgumentsMany GMAT critical reasoning questions will ask you to evaluate an argument. This usually means you willhave to assess the logic of the argument and/or the effectiveness of the evidence provided in support of theconclusion. To do this, you need to consider three elements of effective arguments: Qualifiers. Does the argument allow for exceptions, or make an absolute claim? ■ Evidence. Does the argument provide strong evidence to accept the claim? ■ Logic. Does the argument present reasonable premises, or is it based on faulty logic? ■ 93 – CRITICAL REASONING –Q ualifiersQualifiers are words and phrases that limit the scope of a claim to help make an argument more valid (morelikely to be true). For example, take a look at the following arguments: 1. Don’t believe anything politicians say. All politicians are corrupt. 2. Don’t believe most of what politicians say. Most politicians are corrupt. 3. Be careful believing what politicians say. A lot of politicians are corrupt. Which argument is the strongest? Although argument 1 is the most assertive, it’s also the weakest argu-ment. It is the least likely to be true because it uses absolute terms (anything and all) in both its conclusionand premise. Argument 2 is much stronger because it uses the word most to qualify its conclusion and prem-ise. But it is still telling you to disbelieve most of what politicians say, and even the most corrupt politiciansprobably don’t lie most of the time. It still asserts that most politicians are corrupt, a claim that will likely bedifficult to prove. Argument 3 may seem the weakest because of its qualifiers, but it is actually the strongestbecause it is the most plausible argument of the three. It is the most likely to be true. The following words and phrases can significantly strengthen arguments by qualifying them: few routinely ■ ■ rarely most ■ ■ some often ■ ■ sometimes one might argue ■ ■ in some cases perhaps ■ ■ it is possible ...