Question Practice - Critical Reasoning

Question 1:
After several years of vaccinating all of the citizens of this state for Tacitus’
Disease, a highly infectious virus, state hospitals have cut costs by no longer
administering this vaccine, starting at the beginning of this year. A state
senator defended the position, arguing that after several years with zero
incidence of the disease in the state, its citizens were no longer at risk. This is
a flawed argument. Our state imports meats and produce from countries
with high incidences of diseases for which our country has vaccines. Three
years ago, when we reduced the use of the Salicetiococcus vaccines, a small
outbreak of Salicetiococcus among young children, fortunately without
fatalities, encouraged us to resume use of the previous vaccines.

The public health official’s statements, if true, best support which of the following
as a conclusion?

A. Young children of the state will be at risk for Tacitus’ Disease.

B. Some of the meats imported to this state do not have adequate
refrigeration during the shipping process.
C. Tacitus’ Disease is a much deadlier disease than Salicetiococcus, and
has a correspondingly higher fatality rate.
D. No food products produced within the state bear any contaminants
that could lead to either Tacitus’ Disease or Salicetiococcus.
E. The cost of providing all citizens of the state with the Tacitus’ Disease
vaccine places an undue burden on the budget of state health agencies.
Question 2:
Diamond Enterprises is a store in Apisville that sells specialty luxury items.
For several years, Diamond reaped substantial profits and was considering
building branch stores in nearby counties. Stibium Industries, for several
years the single largest employer in Apisville and the surrounding region,
abruptly closed its plant last year, causing widespread unemployment. Only
a fraction of the former Stibium workers have found new jobs, and many of
these at much lower wages. Early this year, Diamond Enterprises has filed
for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, citing the closure of Stibium as one of the
primary causes.

Which of the following inferences is best supported by the passage?

A. Diamond Enterprises would have avoided bankruptcy if it had

followed through with the plan to build branch stores during its more
prosperous years.
B. Stibium’s management team had a corporate account with Diamond
Enterprises, and ordered several luxury items used in business
meetings and to entertain prospective clients.
C. Diamond’s direct competitors, in Apisville and in the surrounding
region, are much larger than Diamond, and therefore benefitted
substantially from the conditions that arose after Stibium closed.
D. The closure of Stibium resulted in a loss of revenue for Diamond
Enterprises.
E. After Stibium Industry closed, Diamond Enterprises was the single
largest employer in Apisville.
Question 3:
Studies have shown that highway drivers are less likely to drive at speeds
greater than the posted speed limit if houses or buildings are in some way
visible from the road. Assuming similar car, road and traffic conditions,
highway drivers are more likely to drive at speeds in excess of the posted
speed limit if the natural surroundings are not interrupted by buildings.
Psychologists hypothesize that seeing signs of civilization reminds drivers of
their responsibility to the safety of their fellow humans, thus making them
more likely to obey the posted speed limit.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the psychologists’

interpretation of the study?

A. People who live in sparsely populated areas are more likely to buy cars
that can drive well in excess of any speed limit.
B. Highway drivers passing a large plowed and cultivated field are more
likely to obey the speed limit than those passing large field of wild
flowers.
C. Traffic tends to be more congested around towns and cities.
D. Drivers are equally likely to obey the speed limit whether driving past a
town with or without tall buildings.
E. Highway police officers are more densely located close to towns and
cities, and therefore most citations for speeding are issued in these
locations.
Question 4:
Bottom trawling is a type of deep-sea fishing that involves dragging a large
net along the bottom of the ocean, and it results in catching and killing many
unintended species, some of which are endangered. Environmental
advocates, concerned for these endangered marine species, have
recommended that commercial fishers use a new set of nets, each designed
specifically for the size and shape and pheromones (chemical attractors) of
an individual marine species targeted by the commercial fishers.
Environmentalists hope use of these new nets will protect the endangered
marine species without interrupting commercial deep-sea fishing.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the claim that the use of the
new nets will have the intended effects?

A. The pheromones that would most attract the food species sought by
commercial fishers indicate the presence of a dangerous threat to most
of the endangered marine species
B. Some endangered marine species are particularly large, as large any
species targeted by commercial deep-sea fishing.
C. Most of the newly designed nets are not significantly more expensive
than a typical bottom trawling system.
D. Catching unintended, endangered species adds nothing to the profits
of a commercial deep-sea fishing company.
E. Freshwater fishers often increase the odds of catching a desired fish,
and avoid catching unintended species, by the specific design of the
fishing hook.
Question 5:
Since the 2000 season, the average number of strikeouts per player has
dramatically increased in Major League Baseball. The 2011 and 2012
seasons have the highest averages on record. Some writers have argue that
batters, trying to hit homeruns at the same elevated rate at which they were
hit in the <steroid= era, are taking increasingly larger swings, making them
that much more vulnerable to striking out. But the real reason is enhanced
video review. Pitchers are not necessarily any more talented than in the past,
but they all watch video on each and every batter, studying his unique
weaknesses, and, well-informed, are better able to exploit those weaknesses
in game situations, even weaknesses of those batters with more compact
swings.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the baseball analyst’s
argument?

A. Both the total number of homeruns and the average number of

homeruns per batter have decreased steadily since 2000.
B. Batters who hit more singles and have shorter swings strike out, on
average, far less than the power hitters who are trying to hit homeruns.
C. Baseball bats now, on average, are much lighter and easier to swing fast
than were bats of fifty years ago.
D. Most batters also watch video of each and every pitcher, learning to
detect what pitches he throws and how he releases each pitch.
E. Catchers and pitching coaches watch the same video that pitchers
watch, and they are in a position to advise pitchers on different batters
throughout the game.
Question 6:
The blue-tipped Puffer is a migratory bird that is found along the coast of this
state in summer months. The Puffers enjoy the seeds of Thomson’s Mulberry
trees; because these trees are plentiful in the state’s Coastal Park,
traditionally many blue-tipped puffers would be found in the park during
summer months. Ten years ago, the grey fox, a primary predator of the
Puffer, was re-introduced into the park, and their number have been thriving.
Over that time, we have seen many fewer Puffers in the park during the
summer months. Clearly, the Puffers are choosing to spend their summers
elsewhere.

Which of the following would be the most important to determine in order to

evaluate the argument?

A. What other birds and small mammals the grey fox typically hunts
besides the blue-tipped Puffers.
B. Whether the grey fox eats the fruit of the Thomson’s Mulberry trees.
C. How the speed of a blue-tipped Puffer during take-off from the ground
compares to the speed of a grey fox running
D. Whether the range of the grey fox within the park extends all the way
to the coast.
E. Whether other coastal areas in the state have seen an increase in the
number of blue-tipped Puffers over the last decade.
Question 7:
Traditionally, the foundations of houses were made of concrete. A builder is
experimenting with using a hard plastic polymer for foundations. A
foundation made with the polymer is about the same price to construct and
install as is concrete foundation. Unlike concrete, the polymer will not block
all water flow and is not prone to cracking with age. The builder argues that
houses built with the polymer foundation will last longer.

Which of the following must be studied in order to evaluate the argument

presented above?

A. Whether repairs to polymer foundations are more expensive than

repairs to concrete foundations.
B. Whether soil acidity, to which all stone is resistant, can dissolve the
polymer.
C. How dry the soil in this region becomes during typical summer
droughts.
D. Whether residents will be able to smell the vapors that outgas from the
polymer.
E. Whether consumers seeking to buy a house will trust a house with an
alternate foundation.
Question 8:
Algorpal Industries produces high quality pneumatic filters. For years, they
have primarily served manufacturers of domestic agricultural equipment,
and over time, this market has been decreasing. A consultant recommended
that, with a minor modification, Algorpal could expand into pneumatic filters
for biomedical research technology, a rapidly expanding market. The
consultant argued that this single change could reverse a ten-year decline in
Algorpal’s profits.

Which of the following would be the most useful to establish in evaluating the
consultant’s recommendation?

A. Whether other markets, such as food processing and food service,

would offer greater opportunities for potential profits.
B. Whether the number of biomedical devices at any single research
center is greater than the number of pieces of equipment requiring
filters on a single farm.
C. How the ambient indoor air quality in a biomedical research center
compares to the typical outdoor air quality in an agricultural zone.
D. Whether the competition in the biomedical technology sector would
allow for profits similar to what those in the agricultural sector had
been
E. Whether countries with expanding agricultural sectors would use farm
equipment similarly to the domestic equipment current served by
Algorpal.
Question 9:
The cafeteria of a certain elementary school provides a free lunch every day
to the entire student body — a significant expense in the school’s annual
budget. A vice principal was exploring cost-reducing measures that would
not compromise nourishment. A local Italian restaurant offered the school a
large number of pizzas at a vastly reduced bulk rate. The pizzas were served
one day, and afterward, the vice principal calculated that the cost of the pizza
and delivery was slightly more than the average cost of typical cafeteria
lunch day. Therefore, he concluded that the school could not save money by
replacing a day of cafeteria lunch with a day of pizza from this restaurant.

Which of the following would be most useful for evaluating the conclusion drawn
by the vice principal?

A. How many pizzas were uneaten at the end of that day’s lunch.
B. Whether pizza provides the same level of nutrition as a typical
cafeteria lunch.
C. Whether another Italian restaurant in this town would provide a
similar deal and offer free delivery.
D. Whether other, more expensive dishes from that Italian restaurant,
would provide a more balanced and varied set of nutrients.
E. Whether the faculty preferred the pizza to the typical cafeteria lunch.
Summary of Article 1: Major points of the article

The summary is included in the article as a footnote.

Q1​:
The credited answer is (A).

We know the citizenry currently is immune because of the vaccine. If they

stop immunizing folks, the unvaccinated ones, i.e. the young children, would
be vulnerable to this <highly infectious= diseases. We don’t know for sure
that they will definitely get Tacitus’ Diseases, but we certainly know that
their unvaccinated immune systems would be <at-risk= for it. This is a
well-supported conclusion.

Choice (B) is tempting. We know the countries that export meat & produce
to this state have many of these diseases. It is suggested that these imports
could constitute a vector for Tacitus’ disease into the state. We don’t know
whether diseases could be introduced through these imports, but even if
they are, there’s no reason to conclude meats are unrefrigerated.
Unrefrigerated meat spoils very quickly, which suggest that it never could be
sold once it arrived here. Furthermore, refrigerator doesn’t destroy viruses
— they can simply remain dormant until they thaw. We have no grounds for
concluding this. (B) is incorrect.

Choice (C) is unsubstantiated: we have no way to compare the infection

rates. (C) is incorrect.

Choice (D) might be tempting, but we just don’t know. The whole population
has been immune to Tacitus’ disease for years, because they all have been
vaccinated. We don’t know by what pathways the Tacitus’s disease virus
might be entering the population. We have no reason to assume this. (D) is
incorrect.
Choice (E) is not a solid conclusion. We know that it cost something for the
state hospitals to provide the Tacitus’ disease vaccine. Was this cost high?
Did it place an economic burden on the state health services? We don’t
know. We have no grounds for drawing this specific conclusion. (E) is
incorrect.
Q2:
The credited answer is (D).
We know Diamond had high profits before Stibium closed, and we know it
was close to bankruptcy after Stibium closed, citing Stibum’s closure as one
of the primary causes.
There, in some way, as a result of Stibium closing, Diamond lost revenue.

Consider the opposite of (D): If Stibium closed, and that caused no revenue
loss for Diamond, then how on earth could Diamond cite the closure of
Stibium as one of the causes of its plummet from high profits to bankruptcy?
The opposite of (D) is a scenario that makes no sense, so (D) is an unavoidable
inference, very well supported.

Choice (A) is a tempting answer. Would branches of other Diamond stores in

other towns have reaped profits, enough to avoid the bankruptcy
mentioned? Perhaps. That’s certainly a plausible possibility, but we don’t
know for sure. If we don’t know for sure, it’s not a good inference. (A) is
incorrect.

Choice (B) is way too specific in the kind of assumptions it makes.

It seems that Diamond was getting some kind of revenue from Stibium, but
was it the management buying perks? or rank-and-file workers buying treats
for themselves? We don’t know. Anything that spins a highly specific story is
too much to infer strictly from the information in the prompt.
(B) is incorrect.

Choice (C) makes too many assumptions — does this specialty store Diamond
have direct competitors in the region? if so, are these competitors larger?
was <being larger= an advantage in the economic conditions that resulted
from Stibium’s closure? There are too many things we don’t know, so we can
draw a clear inference. (C) is incorrect.

Choice (E) is entirely unfounded. We have no idea how big Diamond is, and
we have no idea what other employers Apisville might have.
(E) is incorrect.

(D) is by far the best answer.

Q3:

The credited answer is (B).

If signs of civilization make highway drivers more likely to obey the speed
limit, then (B) provides further.

A plowed field, unlike a field of wild flowers is evidence of civilization, and if

also this causes drivers to obey the speed limit, that’s independent
confirmation for the psychologist argument, a good strengthener.

The argument explicitly says it is equalizing for car & road & traffic
conditions, so that nullifies choices (A) & (C).

Choice (D) cites the heights of buildings, which is irrelevant, not cited in the
argument and not pertinent to its logic.

Choice (E) is a weakener: if obeying the speed around towns has to do with
traffic cops, then that’s an alternative explanation for the evidence, which
takes away credibility from the psychologist explanation.
Q4:

The credited answer is (A).

If the pheromones in the nets simultaneous attract the fish sought by the
commercial fishers, and repel the endangered marine species, that kills two
birds with one stone! It’s good for the commercial fishers, and it does what
the environmentalists want: a win-win scenario!
This is a very clear strengthener.

Choice (B) talks about the large size of some of the endangered species. The
nets are quite specifically designed for individual species, some of which are
large or small. IF anything, a large endangered marine species would not be
caught in any of the nets designed for much smaller animals. Even if it
suggests the plan would work for these few large species, that doesn’t
indicate whether the plan would be successful overall. This is not a
particularly compelling strengthener.

Choice (C) is tempting — if the new nets were really cheap, that would help
the commercial fishers, which is one of the goals. We have to be careful here.

Choice (C) begins <most of the newly designed nets …= Saying that most are
not expensive strongly implies that some are, and this would be problematic
for the commercial fishers. This does not support all the claims.

Choice (D) indicates very broadly that protecting the endangered marine
species could be compatible with the business interests of the commercial
fishers, but this tell us zilch about whether this particular plan, involving the
new nets, will work at all.
Choice (E) presents an argument by analogy: freshwater fishers use different
hooks to target individual species, much as this plan proposes using different
nets. This suggests in a general way that this plan could work, but it doesn’t
make clear that the new plan involving the nets definitely will work.
Q5:

The credited answer is (E).

If the information in the videos really helps pitchers, then having other
individuals who help the pitcher to remember and use all that useful
information would make the pitcher even more successful.

The prompt more or less tells us choice (A) — homeruns were <elevated= in
the <steroids= era, and are not now. It doesn’t strengthen the argument to tell
us something we already know.

We want to explain an overall increase in strikeouts, so information about

some group that strikes out less than other, as choice (B) provides, does not
strengthen the argument. Furthermore, even given that different groups
strikeout at different rates, this sheds no light on what might be responsible
for the overall increase in strikeouts.

The time period of choice (C) does not match the prompt, and it’s unclear
what role increased bat speed would have. Choice (C) is not a strengthener.
Choice (D) is interesting.

If batters watch videos, and if those videos help them just as much as they
help the pitchers, then theoretically, the batters would strike out less
frequently. If we follow this argument, it’s a weakener, not a strengthener,
because it presents an argument about why enhanced video review might
not explain the rise in strikeouts.
Q6:

The credited answer is (E).

The argument is attempting to explain the drop in the number of Puffers. The
conclusion is: the Puffers have gone somewhere else. We need to evaluate:
are the Puffers somewhere else? That’s precisely what (E) address.

In all likelihood, at least some Puffers were eaten by the gray fox, but unless
we can establish that a large portion of the Puffer population has been
hunted and consumed by the fox, this is not directly relevant to the
argument.

All the other answers concern the fox — in the case of (A) & (D), even if we
knew the answers to those questions in great detail, it wouldn’t resolve the
question: have the Puffer been eaten by the fox, or are they somewhere else?

Choice (B) is suggestive, in that it theoretically might put both the Puffer and
fox in proximity of the same tree type, and choice (C) is very suggestive,
summoning an image of a fox hunting a Puffer, but even with this last one, if
we knew for a fact, say, that the fox runs much faster than the Puffer can fly
in the first ten seconds of take-off, then we absolutely would know that fox
could catch a Puffer on the ground, and probably we could assume that at
least a couple times this actually has happened, but it still wouldn’t resolve
the fundamental question: have the majority of Puffers been eaten, or are the
majority somewhere else?

Only (E) addresses that question.

Q7:

The argument’s conclusion is quite specifically: the houses with the polymer
foundation will last longer.

That’s the specific issue, the issue of which lasts longer. The credited answer
is (B), because if the soil acidity dissolves the polymer, that foundation will
not last as long as the concrete.

Choice (A) gets into financial considerations, which would be a concern for
homeowners, but even if one type of foundation is more expensive than the
other to repair, that doesn’t tell us anything about how frequently either
needs to be repaired or how long either might last.

Choice (C) is a strange distractor: the prompt mentions water flow, which
might seep through concrete, but in drought months, there would be no
water flow. Both foundations would be bone dry. Knowing the answer to
this question would tell us nothing about how long each type of foundation
will last.

Choice (D) gets into a quality-of-life issue, and indeed folks living in the house
might not like the smell, might sue the builder, etc. etc., but none of that
affects the central issue: how long will the foundation last?

Choice (E) gets into another economic issue: will people buy these houses or
not? Will people trust these foundations? Whether folks trust them or not,
and whether the houses sell at high prices or at bargain low prices, do not
affect the fundamental issue: how long the foundation will last.
Q8:

The core of the consultant’s argument is: branching into this new sector will
bring new profits, profits to replace what was lost in the agriculture sector.
The credited answer is (D): whether branching into this new biomedical
sector indeed will replace the former profits.

Choice (A) raises a different question, profits from a third sector not
mentioned. This might offer yet another alternative, but it’s not directly
relevant to the question: will entering the biomedical sector replace former
profits?

Choice (B) might appear to be relevant to the question of profits, but suppose
we knew the precise answer to this — suppose we knew, say, that each farm
had five machines and each research center had three machines. Then what?
How many farms overall are there? How many biomedical research centers
overall are there? We don’t know, so we can’t evaluate the question of total
profits.

Choice (C) is an interesting distractor. Whatever a pneumatic filter may filter,

it probably has something to do with air. Are these filters filtering ambient
air in the room, or are they filtering some particular internal channel within
the machine? We don’t know, and even if we did, we would still be a long way
off from deciding anything about profits.

Choice (E), like Choice (A), offers another option, another avenue that
Algorpal might decide to follow instead of, or in addition to, the consultant’s
recommendation. The task here, though, quite specifically, is to evaluate the
consultant’s recommendation. How successful another avenue would be
tells us nothing about how successful the plan recommended by the
consultant would be.
Q9:

The vice-principal’s concern was about whether a pizza lunch would save the
school money. As it played out, the cost of the pizza lunch was slightly more
than a usual cafeteria lunch would cost.

The credited answer is (A):

if pizzas were left over, that means the school could have ordered fewer pizza
and still feed everyone; if the school ordered enough fewer pizzas, that would
bring the cost of the pizza lunch below the cost of the usual cafeteria lunch.
That’s why the number of boxes of leftover pizza is a crucial issue for
evaluating the vice principal’s conclusion.

While nutrition was mentioned in the prompt, and while pizza is not the most
nutritious food by itself, this is not directly relevant to the conclusion about
the cost-effectiveness of the lunch. Choice (B) is not relevant.

Notice that the vice principal’s conclusion is very specific: <a day of pizza
from this restaurant.= Another restaurant might be another option, but it
wouldn’t alter a conclusion about this restaurant. Choice (C) is not relevant.

Like (A), choice (D) explore the irrelevant issue of nutrition. Furthermore,
those other dishes are more expensive, so they definitely would not be
cost-effective. This is completely irrelevant to evaluating whether a pizza
lunch from that restaurant would be cost-effective.

Whether the faculty like the lunch or not has no bearing on how cost
effective the pizza lunch might be. Choice (E) is not relevant.
See you all again, ​tomorrow​!