0

Critical Reasoning Sprint - 19 (GRE)

Description: Critical Reasoning Sprint-19
Number of Questions: 5
Created by:
Tags: Critical Reasoning Sprint-19 Assumption Weaken Explain/Resolve Strengthen
Attempted 0/5 Correct 0 Score 0

The new Altis Delight, Altis Auto’s flagship electric-gas hybrid automobile, is considered so efficient by Altis that the company plans to sell the Delight to consumers for no payment other than the difference between what the consumer paid for gasoline for the past three years of driving their previous vehicle and what they will pay for gasoline while driving the Delight for the next three years. Consumers will make an initial down payment, and then pay any remaining fees after fuel costs have been assessed at the end of the three year period.

Which of the following, if true, would most significantly disadvantage Altis Auto based on their proposed payment system?

  1. Most drivers own only one automobile.

  2. Other car manufacturers are planning to introduce similar fuel-efficient vehicles.

  3. Drivers interested in the Delight tend to drive significantly more miles annually than the average driver.

  4. The price of gasoline is expected to rise dramatically over the next three years.

  5. The annual amount spent on gasoline by drivers can be accurately determined based on the number of miles driven in a specific make of automobile.


Correct Option: D
Explanation:

(1) Most drivers own only one automobile.

If is is assumed that drivers own only one automobile, then it could be either Altis Delight or any other brand. Either ways there won’t be any disadvantage for Altis Auto. If they own some other brand, then there is no question of this payment plan and if the drivers own Altis Delight, then the payment plan is applicable, which could be well thought of.
(2) Other car manufacturers are planning to introduce similar fuel-efficient vehicles.
Altis Delight is already purchased, so competitor is not a problem.
(3) Drivers interested in the Delight tend to drive significantly more miles annually than the average driver.
The payment is structured around the price differential of gasoline and the price incurred on this car. So distance has no bearing on the payment system to disadvantage Altis Auto.
(4) The price of gasoline is expected to rise dramatically over the next three years.
If the price of gasoline increases, then the savings would deplete and Altis Auto will receive significantly less payment, which is a disadvantage.
(5) The annual amount spent on gasoline by drivers can be accurately determined based on the number of miles driven in a specific make of automobile. Number of miles has no bearing on the savings. So this doesn’t disadvantage Altis Auto.

Paleontologists hypothesize that modern birds evolved from the family of dinosaurs that included Tyrannosaurus rex. This hypothesis would be strongly supported if evidence that dinosaurs from this family had a body covering resembling feathers could be found, but so far no such evidence has been found.

Which of the following, if true, would most help the paleontologists explain why no evidence of feathered dinosaurs has yet been found?

  1. Fossilized dinosaurs have shown many birdlike characteristics, such as bone structure and wing-like arms.

  2. If birds are in fact the descendants of dinosaurs, then it can be argued that the dinosaurs never really died out.

  3. Flying dinosaurs such as the Pteranodon, which is not thought to have been related to modern birds, do not appear to have had feathers.

  4. Soft tissues such as skin and feathers do not fossilize like bones, and therefore are far less likely to have left permanent evidence in the fossil record.

  5. The thousands of dinosaur fossils excavated by paleontologists represent only a tiny fraction of the billions of dinosaurs that once lived.


Correct Option: D
Explanation:

This is a "best resolves the paradox" method of reasoning type critical reasoning question. In these questions, you have to insert a piece of evidence that bridges the gap between two seemingly conflicting pieces of information. Here that information is the idea that modern birds are thought to have evolved from dinosaurs, and that fossil evidence of dinosaurs with feather-like body covering would be helpful in supporting this hypothesis yet none have been discovered.

Answer choice 1 is a trap and out of scope. We are simply focused on reconciling the fact that no evidence of feather-like body covering has been discovered. We are not addressing other bird-like characteristics.

Answer choice 2 does not help at all. Whether you want to claim dinosaurs have "died out" or not does not impact the fact that no relevant fossils have been located. This answer choice can get you thinking almost philosophically and really distract you from the issue at hand.
Answer choice 3 is another trap. This answer choice baits you into thinking about other bird characteristics such as flying, and is thus similar to answer choice 1.
Answer choice 4 nails it and is thus the correct answer. If feathers do not fossilize and are therefore unlikely to leave permanent fossil records, then that would perfectly explain how the hypothesis could be correct even though these fossils have not been found. Answer choice 5 is tempting, but ultimately not our most convincing choice. Even if only thousands of fossils have been excavated, it is entirely possible that every single type of dinosaur that existed has been found. There are around 7 billion humans on this planet, but you don't have to find 7 billion fossils when we die to figure out what characteristics we all share.

The national infrastructure for airport runways and air traffic control requires immediate expansion to accommodate the increase in private, smaller planes. To help fund this expansion, the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) has proposed a fee for all air travelers. However, this fee would be unfair, as it would impose costs on all travelers to benefit only the few who utilize the new private planes.

Which of the following, if true, would cast the most doubt on the claim that the proposed fee would be unfair?

  1. The existing national airport infrastructure benefits all air travelers.

  2. The fee, if imposed, will have a negligible impact on the overall volume of air travel.

  3. The expansion would reduce the number of delayed flights resulting from small private planes congesting runways.

  4. Travelers who use small private planes are almost uniformly wealthy or traveling on business.

  5. A substantial fee would need to be imposed in order to pay for the expansion costs.


Correct Option: C
Explanation:

Here the argument states that the imposed fee will be unfair because all travelers will pay it but only the few travelers who utilize private planes will benefit from it. If we can find a reason why everyone will actually benefit from it, and not just those who utilize private planes, then that would effectively weaken this argument.

(1) The existing infrastructure is not what is being discussed. The issue is that a fee is being imposed to pay for infrastructure expansion, so discussing the existing infrastructure on its own is not relevant.

(2) Out of scope. The argument didn't say anything about this fee reducing overall air travel volume. It is very possible that everyone who utilizes air travel continues to do so, but only now they have to pay a fine that for many of them is not viewed as far.
(3) This gets at our prediction, and is thus correct. If the expansion reduces flight delays by eliminating congestion, then probably many air travelers are going to benefit from this infrastructure expansion, not only the few people who utilize private planes.
(4) Completely out of scope. Nobody's wealth is relevant here. (5) Saying that the fee will be large is out of scope. If anything this would seem to strengthen the argument if the fee ends up being substantial for normal travelers, but the magnitude of the fee is in reality out of scope. The issue is simply about whether other travelers having to pay the fee is fair, and it does not matter if the fee is $1,000,000 or $.01 per person.

Bollywood produces one of the largest music scores in the entire world. Currently, the music produced for movies generates revenue by album sales and licensing deals for advertisements. While the film producer keeps the entire revenue from album sales, he does share some revenue generated by licensing deals with the Music directors. Therefore, the music directors are entitled to some revenue from ringtone sales to cell phones.

The argument above is best supported if which one of the follow would be added as an additional premise

  1. The revenue generated by sales of music albums is much higher than the revenue generated by licensing deals

  2. The current contracts between music directors do not have any clause covering ring tones.

  3. Music directors will produce music that is more suitable for ringtones if they are given a share in the revenue from ring tones.

  4. Producers need music directors to create versions of music that can be used as ring tones.

  5. The use of music as ring tones is more comparable to the use of music in advertisements than it is to music albums


Correct Option: E
Explanation:

Step 1: Premise

Only 2 ways for music revenue = Albums + License

AND,
"Albums" = ALL revenue kept by producers
"License" = SOME revenue shared between music directors and producers
Step 2: Conclusion
Music directors are entitled to SOME revenue from ringtone sales to cell phones.
Step 3: Bridge the Gap/ Find an Assumption
The SOME (in Conclusion) can only come from "License" revenue (as per the Premise) Answer choice (5) correctly bridges the gap.

Headaches can often be effectively relieved by over-the-counter medication, without necessitating a physician’s oversight. However, doctors warn against employment of this simple strategy for recurring or particularly long-lasting headaches, even if such medication can provide relief. Since such headaches are often symptomatic of more serious maladies, sufferers are strongly advised instead to consult their physicians.

Which of the following conclusions is most strongly supported by the statements above?

  1. The greater the pain associated with a particular headache, the more serious the underlying cause.

  2. In some cases physicians advise against seeking immediate relief from pain.

  3. Some headaches cannot be relieved with over-the-counter medications.

  4. Physicians tend to focus less on pain relief rather than on other physical symptoms.

  5. Over-the-counter medication cannot provide effective relief of a headache if the underlying cause is a serious malady.


Correct Option: B
Explanation:

(1) The greater the pain associated with a particular headache, the more serious the underlying cause.

There's no mention of a connection between the headache severity and severity of its underlying cause.

(2) In some cases physicians advise against seeking immediate relief from pain.
In some cases (headaches with more serious underlying causes), physicians advise against seeking immediate relief (OTC meds) and strongly advise that individuals consult their physicians.
(3) Some headaches cannot be relieved with over-the-counter medications.
"..even if such medication can provide relief" suggests that this statement cannot be supported.
(4) Physicians tend to focus less on pain relief rather than on other physical symptoms. -There's no mention of this.
(5) Over-the-counter medication cannot provide effective relief of a headache if the underlying cause is a serious malady. The text says "even if such medication can provide relief." However there's no distinction between more serious or less serious maladies.

- Hide questions