ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
GMAT Ninja CR Ep 6: Falling in love with an answer choice
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ส.ค. 2024
- Have you ever looked at an answer choice and thought that it definitely and completely answers the question, so there's no need to look at the rest of the answer choices? Did you get that question wrong? This problem happens more than you might think...
In this video, Harry -- a GMAT Ninja tutor -- will show you why you should always give every answer choice your full attention, even if you think one of the answer choices is definitely the answer to the question. He'll show you how to avoid getting caught out so you can answer CR questions more accurately and confidently.
This is video #6 in our full-coverage series of GMAT Critical Reasoning lessons. For updates on upcoming videos, please subscribe!
Want more GMAT and EA test-prep tips and advice?
Subscribe to our TH-cam channel: / gmatninjatutoring
For more information about GMAT tutoring: www.gmatninja....
For updates on this series and our other projects: / gmatninja
For more on Harry Duthie and his penchant for bench-pressing students who refuse to do their homework: www.gmatninja....
Chapters:
00:00 Introduction
02:50 Question 1 - Ramirez: The film industry claims...
10:46 Question 2 - Guillemots are birds of Arctic regions...
21:49 Question 3 - The folktale that claims that...
Here are links to the questions covered in the video:
Question 1 -- Ramirez: The film industry claims...
gmatclub.com/f...
Question 2 -- Guillemots are birds of Arctic regions...
gmatclub.com/f...
Question 3 -- The folktale that claims that...
gmatclub.com/f...
![Exclusive! น้องลิกก้า&น้องโรร่า มาแล้ว!! [cc] แดนแพทตี้ SS2 | EP.48 |](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UmlpJhRekyY/mqdefault.jpg)
Last question was one of the best CR questions I have come across.
Thanks,
Harry
3rd one was brilliant. I got D but E was a brilliant choice. Thanks for the videos :) Really helpful.
Hi Adyasa, thank you for your kind words. I'm pleased you found the videos helpful, and good luck with your GMAT studies!
A brilliant choice of questions and as usual the explanation is top class! Thank you very much Harry! Also, I convey my sincere gratitude to the whole GMAT Ninja Team for organizing this series. Best wishes and may you all stay safe and blessed!
Thank you for your very kind words, Rishik! I'm so pleased you enjoyed the video and I hope you're finding the rest of the series just as helpful. Best of luck with the rest of your GMAT studies and please keep us posted on how you get on
Revising this playlist after 3 months, gladly didnt remember the correct answers; I was very confident of my answer choices this time. Last question was lit. I just came to answer by POE, I knew all the first 4 options are definitely wrong but then came to understand why E was correct. Brilliant question choices Harry.
Only by watching your previous videos in this series was I able to get 3rd question right. Thanks and Namaste
Thank you!! Glad you've found the videos helpful.
Q3 is definitely the kind one should not waste time on
Took some time to understand the last question. Thank you very much!!!!
Last question, E specifies a growth stability regardless of situation (it can even be when rattlesnakes are under stress or whatnot) whereas A specifies a stability with extra unnecessary info, putting emphasis on the frequency, that’s how I got E
Really loved this video. Thanks GMAT Ninja.
Glad to hear it! Thank you for the kind words
Last ques is 🔥🔥
Can you guys upload more questions and strategy that does not involve "pre-thinking". I opt for an online GMAT classes and didn't find Pre-thinking to improve my CR answering skills. I loved your approach.
Thank you for the kind words! Pretty much all of our CR videos model the same general principles, so you'll see the same things echoed throughout our CR series. So you'll likely find the entire series helpful.
That said, this video focuses specifically on the dangers of anticipating answers in advance: th-cam.com/video/DdeA2tSDj4I/w-d-xo.html. Hopefully it resonates a bit.
Thank you again for the kind words, and have fun studying!
In regards to the last question concerning the rattlesnake's age, I fell into the 50% or so that chose A. My question/concern is that A was eliminated because the time frame itself wasn't necessary, just the fact that molting was done consistently. Could you not argue that by saying something happens EXACTLY once per year, that it takes into account any underlying conditions that could affect it? I guess when I read it and I was down to A and E as my final two, I thought that A almost included E as a condition by default since it happens once per year no matter what and an assumption has to be true. Could anyone shed some light on my train of thought since it is obviously leading me down the wrong path?
Hi Christopher,
The key to this problem is to focus on the wording of the question: "which one of the following is an assumption the argument REQUIRES in order for its conclusion to be properly drawn?"
We've got to keep that word REQUIRES in mind when answering this question. If we knew that the rattlesnake molts "exactly once a year" we *could* determine its age from the number of sections in its rattle. So this information is SUFFICIENT to reach the conclusion, but we're being asked whether it's NECESSARY.
Just because we *could* determine a rattlesnake's age from the number of sections in its rattle using this information doesn't make this information NECESSARY for the reasons given in the video (we could reach the same conclusion with a changed time frame: molting exactly once every 6 months, 3 months, 9 months, 2 years, etc.). Even if (A) takes into account any underlying condition that could affect the rattlesnake, we don't need THIS information to reach the conclusion.
However, if a rattlesnake's rate of molting varies depending on its access to food, then there's little chance we'll be able to determine its age simply from the number of sections in its rattle. This means we NEED to know that the rattlesnake will molt just as often when it has access to a lot of food as when it struggles to find food. This means (E) might not be SUFFICIENT to reach the conclusion, but it is NECESSARY for us to be able to get there.
I hope that helps!
@@harryduthie I had a similar thought process as Chris and couldn't quite get why E was the right choice. But this response clarifies it perfectly, difference between thinking of sufficiency and necessity was the key here. I was mistaking sufficiency for necessity.
I think the number of peoples choosing A is way more than 50% 🙁
Super content!
Hey Harry! Your explanations are brilliant. But I am taking longer than usual, around 3+ mins per question. Please advise on how to reduce this time as this is costing a lot during the actual practice exam.
That's a great question!
Generally speaking, the best way to improve your efficiency on CR is to refine your process as much as possible. For more specifics on that, feel free to check out our Beginners Guide to GMAT CR at this url: www.gmatninja.com/gmat/articles/verbal/beginners-guide-to-gmat-critical-reasoning
I hope that helps!
in last q, it was never mentioned in passage that the snakes molt every year, nor any interval was given. so i feel A should have been the answer. E is adding another variable just like C is adding
The key to this problem is to focus on the wording of the question: "which one of the following is an assumption the argument REQUIRES in order for its conclusion to be properly drawn?"
We've got to keep that word REQUIRES in mind when answering this question. If we knew that the rattlesnake molts "exactly once a year" we could determine its age from the number of sections in its rattle. So this information is SUFFICIENT to reach the conclusion, but we're being asked whether it's NECESSARY.
However, just because we COULD determine a rattlesnake's age from the number of sections in its rattle using this information doesn't make this information NECESSARY for the reasons given in the video (we could reach the same conclusion with a changed time frame: molting exactly once every 6 months, 3 months, 9 months, 2 years, etc.). Even if no interval was mentioned in the passage, we don't need THIS information to reach the conclusion.
However, if a rattlesnake's rate of molting varies depending on its access to food, then there's little chance we'll be able to determine its age simply from the number of sections in its rattle. This means we NEED to know that the rattlesnake will molt just as often when it has access to a lot of food as when it struggles to find food. This means (E) might not be SUFFICIENT to reach the conclusion, but it is NECESSARY for us to be able to get there.
I hope that helps!
If i got last 2 ques wrong, what am I doing wrong. Like what should be my learning for further questions
In Q2, should it not be C? because as an option it directly attacks the premise that guillemots prefer warmer temperatures, by saying that irrespective of the temperature, the birds prefer the coastal areas (changing the preference from temperature to geographical factors), hence weakening it.
great videos by the way, very helpful
Hi! The passage tells us that guillemots need "80 consecutive snow-free days in a year to raise their chicks." It's then implied that this only occurred in the southernmost Arctic coast until the recent warming trend. The suggestion is that this warming trend will create new areas further north that experience enough consecutive snow-free days in a year for the guillemots to raise their chicks.
This means the argument doesn't actually claim that guillemots prefer warmer temperatures. It's possible the guillemots are perfectly happy in the cold, but they need these snow-free days to raise their chicks. From the information in the passage, we can't tell how the guillemots really feel about the temperature.
Answer choice (C) then tells us that the "Guillemots nest in coastal areas," and that the coastal areas are warmer than inland areas. However, this information doesn't restrict the guillemots to the southernmost Arctic coast. They can still enlarge their range and nest in the coastal areas further north as long as they get 80 consecutive snow-free days as the warming trend continues to enable them to raise their chicks. This means (C) doesn't weaken the argument, so it's not the answer to this question.
I hope that helps!
Hi @harryduthie
In the last question I was actually stuck between D and E. If we go with negating the option D we can say that the brittleness is the measure of the rattlesnake's age which sort of weaking the argument. But by negating E option it gives more clarity about the molting period. If there is scarcity of food then RSnake's will molt less which will give inaccurate data about the age of R snake. I thought negation of E is much better in weakening than D. Is my approach correct here ?
Thanks in advance.
Hi Akshit,
I wouldn't jump into negating the answer choices quite as quickly as you've done here. The start of the conclusion in the passage says "So if they were not so brittle..." This tells us that the argument wants us to consider the number of sections in the rattlesnake's rattle under the assumption that some sections have not broken off due to the rattle's brittleness.
This means we don't have to worry about how brittle the rattlesnake's rattle is, so (D) is definitely not an assumption required by the argument and we can cross out (D).
I hope that helps!
@@harryduthie thank you so much Harry. I now understood what you're trying to imply. Thanks again to you and the whole GMAT ninja team. These verbal sessions are very helpful to me. 😀
Thanks for this series. One doubt in the last question (Q3):
" Rattlesnakes molt as often when food is scarce as they do when food is plentiful"
Does "as often" refer specifically to a certain number of fixed times they molt or does it indicate approximately the same number of times? Since I thought it meant the latter, I eliminated E.
Hi Suyash,
Answer choice (E) tells us that the rate that rattlesnakes molt is the same, no matter how much food a rattlesnake can find. It does not refer to the rattlesnake molting a certain fixed number of times, but it would suggest that two rattlesnakes would have molted approximately the same number of times if they were the same age.
I hope that helps!
Harry, just started studying for GMAT! I wonder how on earth the test asks you to solve these questions under 2 min.. :(
Yup, that's often how it feels at first! As you practice, all of this stuff will start to come more naturally. When you watch our videos, we explain things pretty thoroughly and painstakingly, and it might take us 10 minutes to talk our way through the nuances of a question -- but after a while, that same process will happen in your head much, much faster.
It's possible that even after quite a bit of practice, you'll still struggle with timing on the exam. But I promise that it'll get better over time if you're approaching the questions with the right process and energy.
I hope that helps a bit, and have fun studying!
Thanks for the videos!
For the last question (Snake), why it cant be D. Conclusion says Britttleness is not a factor, but Option D says it is a factor for determining the age (if you go by negation), does it destroy the conclusion then?
The conclusion doesn't tell us brittleness is not a factor, it tells us "if they were not so brittle..." This implies that we should include any sections that have fallen off a rattlesnake's rattle due to its brittleness in our calculations when we try to determine the rattlesnake's age.
Since the conclusion tells us to ignore the brittleness of the rattle, it doesn't matter whether the brittleness of the rattlesnake's rattle correlates with how old the rattlesnake is. All we're interested in is whether the number of sections in a rattlesnake's rattle increases at a regular and predictable rate. This means (D) is not an assumption required to make the argument work, so we can rule (D) out as an answer to this question.
If we tried to negate (D) and it said, "The brittleness of a rattlesnake's rattle IS correlated with the length of the rattlesnake's life," then the number of sections that fell off the rattle would increase as the rattlesnake got older. However, we would still include any sections that have fallen off a rattlesnake's rattle due to its brittleness in our calculations when we try to determine the rattlesnake's age. This means that negating (D) doesn't have any effect on the conclusion, which gives us another reason to cross (D) out.
I hope that helps!
I have one doubt in Q2: the conclusion is "G's range will be enlarge BY BEING EXTENDED NORTHWARD", so if we analyze D it is true that the birds range will not be enlarged, but the conclusion says that this happens because it extended to the north. Therefore, is not necessary that the extension happens because it extends to the north? and what happens in the south should not matter?
The part of the conclusion that (D) weakens is the idea that the range will enlarge. The information in (D) suggests that the warming trend will allow the birds to live further north, but that the thin ice that the fish the guillemots eat gather beneath will disappear in their current range. This suggests that the guillemots may not be able to ENLARGE their range but may end up just MOVING their range further north. Suggesting the guillemots will not be able to enlarge their range weakens the argument, which means (D) is the answer to this question.
I hope that helps!
You remind me of Seth Rogen. Nice tutorial ❤
Haha, a few people have mentioned that over the years! Harry has a much cooler accent and could probably bench-press Seth Rogen, but you're right that there's a bit of resemblance there otherwise. :)
Have fun studying!
Hi Harry, Thank you for the great video.
I'm having a hard time with weakening questions as I don't really understand how I can come up with a proper option that would help refute the argument as opposed to assumption or strengthening questions. How do I go about weakening questions as I really cannot seem to come up with a proper explanation that can help weaken an argument. Any general tips would be helpful. Thank you very much.
The good news is that you don't have to come up with an explanation that would weaken the argument. In fact, as Dana points out in the "Anticipating the correct answer...incorrectly" video, it's better if you don't try to come up with the answer before you go into the answer choices.
The first thing you need to do in a weaken question is to understand the argument provided in the passage. This is exactly the same process you'd follow in a strengthen or assumption question as the arguments are exactly the same. Then, you can go into the answer choices and ask if each one weakens the argument. If it does not weaken the argument, you can cross it out.
So, if an answer choice strengthens the argument, neither strengthens nor weakens the argument, is irrelevant to the argument, or does anything other than weaken the argument, you can cross it out. Whatever's left at the end of that process, even if you don't 100% understand how it weakens the argument, must be the answer to the question.
I hope that helps!
2nd question is directly from OG I think (Online question bank)
I think I've mentioned this in response to comments on other videos, but we only use official questions in our CR and RC videos. GMAC spends thousands of dollars developing these questions, and non-official verbal questions inevitably miss some really, really crucial nuances. So yes, you'll likely recognize some questions in our verbal and DI videos from various official sources.
the same way an evidence "leads" to the conclusion, can we say that an assumption (must) leads to the conclusion ? I mean, if we put it alongside other evidences of the argument, the assumption will feel or sound like an EVIDENCE ?
And once this feature is verified, then we know we got the right answer ?
I feel that the right assumption leads to the same conclusion.
(I'm writting this after the third question; I'm sorry if this sounds dumb haha)
I would love to know what you think of that ?
Thanks !
You can say that an answer choice to an assumption question would feel or sound like evidence for the conclusion. However, just because you find an answer choice that looks like evidence for the conclusion in an assumption question, it doesn't mean that this is the correct answer.
If the question asks "which of the following is an assumption that the argument depends on?", then the correct answer will be necessary for THIS argument to work. It doesn't just lead to the conclusion in the argument, it is necessary for the move from THIS premise to THIS conclusion.
So, a lot of what you say sounds good except for the part about thinking that once you've found an answer choice that supports the conclusion in the question, then you've found the right answer.
I hope that helps a bit, but please let me know if you have any other questions!
@@GMATNinjaTutoring thanks for the clarification !!
3/3
Great video! I got the Q1 right, but i didn't pick A) because it says "any" reduction. Would it still be incorrect if it said profit and dvd release instead of revenue and theatrical release?
Thanks!
In Q1, answer choice (A) could say "most" or "some" instead of "any" and it would still be wrong. It's not the severity of the language that makes it wrong, it's that it's talking about the revenue received from the film's theatrical release. The passage's conclusion tells us that "lowering prices of DVDs and releasing them sooner would mitigate piracy's negative effects on film industry profits." This doesn't necessarily mean that film industry profits have to rise overall. The argument could still work if the profits the film industry makes from the theatrical release decline significantly and, therefore, pull down overall film industry profits as long as piracy's negative effects on these profits are mitigated.
The GMAT wouldn't give you an answer that replaced revenue with profit and theatrical release with DVD release because then this answer choice would contradict some of the information provided in the passage. We're told "consumers want lower prices and faster DVD releases," so unless there was additional information telling us why this changed answer choice doesn't contradict this statement, the GMAT wouldn't include an answer choice that appears to contradict the passage.
I hope that helps!
What difficulty level would these questions be?
Q3, isn't the solution rather simple? you just need to know if they molt at a regular timeframe. E is the only option that just mentions the need for it to be regular
If you can see that's all the question requires, then that's great!! Lots of people find this question challenging, which is why almost half the people attempting it choose (A) as their answer. It's a good sign if you can see why (A) is incorrect and find it rather simple to see why (E) is the right answer!
@@GMATNinjaTutoring okay brilliant, was just making sure i didn't come up with a solution that oversimplifies the question!
I really appreciate your videos and support in the comments!
Hi Harry,
I had a small doubt regarding the last question.
You pointed out E as the answer which explanation I understood.
However - we could apply the same logic to B.
If molting occurs more regulary when they are young than when they are old- would that not change the age that would be determined from the sections.
Hi Mokshaa,
In this question, the correct answer will be the assumption the argument *depends upon* . In other words, the correct answer is NECESSARY in order for the conclusion to work. We don't NEED to know rattlesnakes molt more frequently when young than when old in order to make the argument work. If they molted at the same rate throughout their life, we could still calculate their age from the number of sections in their rattle. Since we don't need (C) in order to make the argument work, it's not the answer to this question.
Also, molting more regularly when they're young than when they're old doesn't necessarily mean we wouldn't be able to calculate their age from the number of sections. As long as the rate is predictable, it can change as the rattlesnake ages and we'd still be able to calculate their age from their rattle.
In comparison, we really do need (E) for the argument to work. If rattlesnakes did NOT molt as frequently when food was scarce as they did when food was plentiful, then we wouldn't know whether a snake had gained a section in their rattle due to their age or due to an abundance of food. Without (E), the argument does not work. This is why (E) is the correct answer.
I hope that helps!
@@harryduthie Thank you Harry!
That is a great video but I have some concerns :
I thought the conclusion was the strong position against the claim of folk state which states that the rattlesnake age can be determined by the number of section in its rattle.
What did I do wrong?😢
Hi Francois,
The conclusion is at the start of the final sentence:
"So if they were not so brittle, one could reliably determine a rattlesnake's age simply from the number of sections in its rattle..."
There's a small clue that this is the conclusion in how the author starts this sentence by saying *"So"* . This gives you a hint that the line of reasoning follows from the previous sentence and the first part of the passage builds toward the conclusion in the second sentence.
You can use words like 'so', 'therefore', 'hence', or 'thus' as signposts for the start of the conclusion, and words like 'because' as a hint that what follows provides a reason or explanation for a conclusion. These signpost-words won't always be there in a passage, but they can be very helpful when they're available.
I hope that helps!
@@harryduthie Hi Harry,
Your explanation is crystal clear. Thank you.
1/3
God damm Q3 was tough