c is a logical conclusion based on the passage. If Hanson’s sale price is $35, nearly twice the price for the same merchandise 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 after the 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 a romance novel (choice c). It is also logical to conclude that sales would further increase if the books were moved 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 that cannot 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 purchases for customers.  Evaluating Arguments Many GMAT critical reasoning questions will ask you to evaluate an argument. This usually means you will have to assess the logic of the argument and/or the effectiveness of the evidence provided in support of the conclusion. 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? – CRITICAL REASONING– 93 Qualifiers Qualifiers are words and phrases that limit the scope of a claim to help make an argument more valid (more likely 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 conclusion and 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 politicians probably don’t lie most of the time. It still asserts that most politicians are corrupt, a claim that will likely be difficult to prove. Argument 3 may seem the weakest because of its qualifiers, but it is actually the strongest because 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 ■ possibly ■ it seems ■ possibly ■ it may be ■ for the most part ■ many It might seem that adding qualifiers is a way of copping out, but they are quite necessary for logical argu- ments. Arguments that lack appropriate qualifiers dig their own graves, because an absolute statement almost always has an exception. And if it has an exception, the claim becomes false, rendering the entire argument invalid. With this knowledge, it should be easier to answer a question such as the following: I should not bother getting Hal a birthday gift this year. He is never happy with anything he gets from anybody. Which of the following statements would most strengthen the speaker’s argument? a. Hal is simply impossible to please. b. At least he is never been happy with a gift from me, and I have tried just about everything. c. Besides, Hal does not need anything — he already has everything he wants. d. Hal is disgusted with our consumption-obsessed culture. e. Hal even complains about gift certificates. – CRITICAL REASONING– 94 The best choice is b, the only statement that offers qualifiers to make the argument more likely to be true (and therefore stronger). In b, the speaker limits Hal’s discontent with gifts to the gifts given by the speaker. The speaker also says she has tried just about everything, a qualifier that allows for the possibility that she simply has not been able to find the right gift. Thus, choice b actually strengthens the argument. Evidence A good argument will provide strong evidence of its conclusion. This means that there is sufficient evidence (this often means more than just one premise) and that the evidence provided in support of the conclusion is strong (reasonable and convincing). Many types of evidence can be provided, including the following: ■ observations ■ interviews ■ surveys and questionnaires ■ experiments ■ personal experience ■ expert opinion Each type of evidence has its strengths and potential weaknesses. Surveys, for example, can give you great statistics and quotes to offer as evidence, and they tend to sound convincing, since they often provide hard numbers that seem objective. But survey results are often less objective than they seem because the results depend upon how well (or how poorly) the survey was designed and implemented. For example, if you only survey two people, your results are probably quite meaningless. If you design my survey so that the questions push respondents to answer in a certain way (loaded questions), then your survey results will probably be quite biased. Similarly, observations have empirical power, but observations can be flawed, and people have been known to see what they want to see. Evaluating Evidence When you are presented with evidence in argument, you should ask several important questions: ■ Is there sufficient evidence to accept the conclusion? ■ Is the evidence relevant to the conclusion? ■ Does the evidence come from an unbiased source? ■ Is the evidence logical? IS THERE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO ACCEPT THE CONCLUSION? The more that is at stake in the conclusion (the more controversial it is, the more risk you take in accepting the argument), the more evidence you should have before accepting the claim. – CRITICAL REASONING– 95 For example, in the DNA argument from the pretest, which we will return to in a moment, the stakes are very high — the conclusion asks us to agree that thousands of convictions should be reviewed and poten- tially overturned on the likelihood that many innocent people are serving time in prison. This is a serious mat- ter, so the amount of evidence should be plentiful. ISTHE EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO THE CONCLUSION? For example, if you are arguing that colleges and universities should offer more classes online, the following evidence might be compelling, but it is not relevant: At one campus, 68% of students said they spent an average of two to three hours online each day. The following item of evidence, however, is relevant: According to a survey of students at three large state universities, 72% of students stated that they would be “very interested” in taking courses online. DOES THE EVIDENCE COME FROM AN UNBIASED SOURCE? Bias is a strong inclination or preference for one person, position, or point of view over others. As discussed earlier, surveys can be loaded so that the answers will favor particular responses; similarly, experts may not be objective because they have something to gain from espousing a particular point of view. You need to con- sider the potential bias of a source when you consider evidence in an argument. For example, take a politi- cal science professor who is asked to evaluate a candidate for a local election. Many factors can bias the professor’s assessment of the candidate’s merits, including whether or not the professor has any personal or professional relationship with the candidate; whether or not they have had past experiences with each other and of what sort; whether or not they belong to the same political party; and whether or not any potential rewards might befall the professor should the candidate win. The following question addresses this kind of problem: City Treasurer: Vote Carson for Governor. Carson knows what it takes to turn the state’s economy around. He will create jobs and improve education. Carson knows how to get things done. Which of the following provides the best reason to reject the treasurer’s argument? a. The treasurer belongs to the same political party as Carson. b. The treasurer has known Carson for less than one year. c. The treasurer once lost an election against Carson. d. The treasurer has been promised a position in Carson’s cabinet if he wins. e. The last candidate the treasurer backed lost the election. Choice d indicates that the treasurer has a real stake in Carson’s winning the election; if Carson wins, he will be on the governor’s payroll. Maybe he does believe that Carson can turn the state around, but because his potential for bias is so high, voters would be wise not to let this politician influence their feelings about Carson and seek other evidence that Carson would (or would not) be a good governor. – CRITICAL REASONING– 96 Sources are credible if they: • have expertise in the subject matter (based upon their experience, education, reputation, recognition, and achievements). • are free from bias. Credibility 97 ISTHEEVIDENCE LOGICAL? Logical means reasonable, based on good common sense, not emotional. It is logical, for example, to conclude that if it is snowing outside, it is cold. It is not logical to assume that it will stop snowing if you wish for it hard enough. It is logical to argue that you should exercise because it will make you feel better — logic does not discount emotions — but it is not logical to argue that you should not help your brother because you are angry with him. Feeling better about yourself is a good reason to exercise; you are doing something in order to feel a positive and healthy emotion. Not helping your brother because you are angry, however, is not log- ical. You need to provide logical reasons for whether or not you should help your brother. Not helping your brother because the last two times you helped him he broke your glasses in half is logical! Logical Fallacies Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that all too often find their way into arguments. Dozens of fallacies exist, but the ones you are most likely to encounter on the GMAT exam are also the ones you are most likely to encounter in everyday life: ■ comparing apples to oranges ■ appeal to emotion ■ bandwagon “everyone else is doing it” appeal ■ straw man ■ red herring ■ slippery slope ■ begging the question ■ ad hominem Also, fallacies exist specifically for causal arguments and explanations. These will be addressed in the sec- tion “Common Flaws in Causal Arguments” later in the chapter. C OMPARING APPLES TO ORANGES Jonas has an apple in one hand and an orange in the other. “Look how much redder the apple is than the orange,” he says. “And the orange is so much more orange.” Well, of course an apple is redder and an orange more orange. It is rather absurd to be making such a comparison because even though apples and oranges are both fruit, they are not the same kind of fruit. If you were to compare a Fuji apple to a gala apple, or a naval orange to a clementine, then you would have a legit- imate comparison. But comparing two things that do not fit in the same category makes for an illogical com- parison. It is obvious here, but in many arguments, you may have to look harder to detect an apples-to-oranges comparison. Two questions from the pretest can help demonstrate how common this fallacy is and how to identify it. 7. Unemployment in Winston County has risen only 4% since I took office. Under my predecessor, unemployment rose 14%. Clearly, my economic policies are far more effective. Which of the following must be true in order for this argument to be valid? a. Winston County’s population dropped significantly during the current administration. b. The national unemployment rate increased by 12% during the previous administration but only 2% during the current administration. c. Key socioeconomic variables such as the state of the national economy and the demographics of Winston County are comparable for each administration. d. Key policy changes, such as increased job training for the unemployed, were implemented under the current administration. e. Tax incentives have been implemented to bring new businesses to Winston County. The problem here is that unless key variables that affect unemployment are the same during these two administrations, this is a case of comparing apples to oranges. For example, if the predecessor was in office dur- ing a deep national recession, no matter how good his economic policies were, he would experience a higher unemployment rate. If Winston County’s economy had been supported largely by a factory that shut down during the predecessor’s administration, that might also explain a significantly higher unemployment rate. The national recession and the factory closing would both have a huge impact on the county’s unemployment no matter who was in office.Without knowing that the variables are nearly the same or without making allowances for differences in those variables, one must assume this is a case of comparing apples to oranges. The same is true for the question about where to go for heart surgery: 12. One out of four heart surgery patients at St. Vincent’s dies from complications during surgery. Only one out of six heart surgery patients at St. Mary’s dies from complications during surgery. If you need heart surgery, make sure you go to St. Mary’s, not St. Vincent’s. Which of the following, if true, is the best reason to reject this argument? a. St. Vincent’s specializes in heart surgery for elderly and high-risk patients. b. St. Mary’s surgical equipment is more up to date than St. Vincent’s. c. St. Vincent’s has the most renowned heart surgeon in the country on its staff. d. St. Vincent’s offers flexible payment options for balances not covered by insurance. e. Two doctors who used to work at St. Mary’s now work at St. Vincent’s. – CRITICAL REASONING– 98 . 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. 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. conclusion? ■ Is the evidence relevant to the conclusion? ■ Does the evidence come from an unbiased source? ■ Is the evidence logical? IS THERE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO ACCEPT THE CONCLUSION? The more