In Part 1, we learned how to recognize Weaken questions, and the importance of focusing on what is being weakened. In Part 2, we reviewed the importance of identifying the conclusion, evidence, and assumptions before reading the answer choices, and learned how reversing the assumption can be a powerful tool to use as your prediction. Let’s look at two harder Weaken questions that have tripped students up in the past, and examine them closely, applying what we have learned.

Review your answers with detailed explanations and strategies on Grockit.

Question 1: The OLEX Petroleum Company has recently determined that it could cut its refining costs by closing its Grenville refinery and consolidating all refining at its Tasberg refinery. Closing the Grenville refinery, however, would mean the immediate loss of about 1,200 jobs in the Grenville area. Eventually the lives of more than 10,000 people would be seriously disrupted. Therefore, OLEX’s decision, announced yesterday, to keep Grenville open shows that at OLEX social concerns sometimes outweigh the desire for higher profits. Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument given?

Conclusion: OLEX’s decision to keep Grenville = Social concerns valued over more $$$
Evidence: Refining costs cut by closing Grenville; Grenville closing = loss of jobs/live disruption

Evidence + Assumption = Conclusion

How does the fact that Grenville’s closing would mean loss of jobs necessarily mean that OLEX is socially concerned?

Assumption: The disruption would not lead to less profitability long-term (OLEX is not motivated by greed).

Now we’re going to reverse the assumption, and use it for our Prediction.

Prediction: Disruption = less profitability, OLEX is not concerned w/social well-being and is motivated by greed.

The Prediction should match the correct answer choice as closely as possible. That is why it’s important to write one down whenever possible. When you write down a Prediction, it clarifies for you what you should look for in the answer choices.

A. The Grenville refinery, although it operates at a higher cost than the Tasberg refinery, has nevertheless been moderately profitable for many years.

B. Even though OLEX could consolidate all its refining at the Tasberg plant, doing so at the Grenville plant would not be feasible.

C. The Tasberg refinery is more favorably situated than the Grenville refinery with respect to the major supply routes for raw petroleum.

D. If the Grenville refinery were ever closed and operations at the Tasberg refinery expanded, job openings at Tasberg would to the extent possible be filled with people formerly employed at Grenville.

E. Closure of the Grenville refinery would mean compliance, at enormous cost, with demanding local codes regulating the cleanup of abandoned industrial sites.

The answer here is E. Notice the phrase “at enormous cost”; it shows that OLEX’s motivation is financial and not social. Now try one on your own!

Question 2: The New Deal in America began in 1933 and included widespread bank reforms, unprecedented government infrastructure spending, and unparalleled expansion in the size of government. Some political commentators and economic historians contend that President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal singlehandedly propelled the United States out of the Great Depression and into decades of uninterrupted prosperity. To support this claim, these economists note that during the years following 1933, GDP grew, unemployment shrunk, and optimism increased. Which of the following statements, if true, would most weaken the above argument?

A.  The considerable debt burden that the government assumed to fund the New Deal sparked fear in the minds of some economists, investors, and businessmen.

B. The considerable government expenditures and massive labor requirements engendered by America’s entry into World War II in late 1941 helped employ Americans and grow GDP.

C. On average, GDP per capita fell and unemployment rose in many foreign countries during the years after President Roosevelt announced his New Deal.

D. During 1939, the U.S. economy contracted sharply, unemployment jumped 5%, and America’s optimism fell.

E. U.S. GDP during the mid 1930s stood at levels much lower than 30 years later.

Check out the wording of the final sentence before the question. “To support this claim, these economists…” We can translate this as knowing the claim is based on 3 good things that happened after 1933: GDP grew, unemployment shrunk, and optimism increased. What would WEAKEN the argument is that if that evidence, the basis of support for the claim, was taken away.

What would most weaken would be if there were other reasons for (+) outcomes, or if after the New Deal in 1933 things did not continue to get better. Notice how D perfectly matches our prediction. It shows that just 6 years later, things were bad again, contradicting the “decades of uninterrupted prosperity” mentioned in the argument.

Did you choose another answer choice, perhaps B? Let’s examine. Notice how D more directly relates to the specificity of the argument. Since 1939 is earlier than 1941, it would show that the New Deal had even less of an impact. Furthermore, since B produced a positive result, helping Americans and growing GDP, you could argue that so did the New Deal. Who’s to say that it was only America’s entry into WWII that caused the growth? Pre-1941 there could have still been (+) growth, so the argument is not necessarily weakened by choice B.

See other articles in this series:

Anatomy of a Weaken Question – Part 1

Anatomy of a Weaken Question – Part 2

Last time we discussed that CR is testing not the implication of single words but the logic of entire arguments, and the need to write down the Conclusion, Evidence & Assumptions as you practice CR to better hone in on what the BASIS is for each argument. We need to spend more time with the argument itself BEFORE reading the answer choices when we practice to improve. For a “weaken” question, the answer choice that MOST weakens the argument will always undermine the premise for the conclusion. If you do not understand the argument first, then you will be tempted by the wrong answer choices that seem to relate to a small part of the premise. It’s all about the bigger picture.

Find out how you can track your progress across specific skills and target your efforts accordingly on Grockit.

Let’s look at the passage and the question we analyzed last time:

Recent U.S. legislation limiting the emissions permissible from automobiles will require auto manufacturers to incorporate new technology and more costly components in cars. This will drive up the price of cars, both at home and abroad. Therefore, the legislation will result in the loss of many export markets.

Conclusion: Legislation = loss of export markets

Evidence: Legislation requires $$ technology; will drive up price of cars

Assump: US cars are more expensive to foreigners; they will stop buying the US cars

Now let’s see how the assumption relates to the answer choices:

The argument to the left is most seriously weakened by which of the following?

A            Most of the countries to which U.S. automobiles are exported have recently enacted similar             legislation limiting emissions.

B            Non-compliance with the new legislation can be punished with high fines.

C            Training factory workers to use the new technology required to manufacture compliant             automobiles will be expensive and time-consuming.

D            Some automobile manufacturers will choose to relocate their plants to other countries that do not             have stringent emissions standards.

E            Environmental groups have been leaning heavily on the auto industry to voluntarily institute such             emissions standards.

This question is weakening “the argument” so we will take the entire argument into consideration here. There are no outside opinions or secondary conclusions we need to worry about. We know the assumptions are NECESSARY to the strength of the argument, and we understand that the underlying assumption here links Legislation à Loss of Export Markets, so the correct answer will make that link invalid. Look for the answer choice that creates a gap between the Legislation and the Loss of Export Markets.

For weaken questions that ask about the entire argument, you can reverse the assumption to make a prediction. If the assumption is something that is necessary, then reversing the assumption will strongly weaken the entire argument.

Prediction: US cars are NOT more expensive to foreigners; they will NOT stop buying US cars

With our Prediction in hand, we can see the correct choice is A. If the legislation has been already enacted, then the US cars will not be more expensive than the foreign cars in the exported countries. Therefore, the conclusion that there will be a loss of export markets is unlikely.

Remember that CR is not based on what you think (or what I think), or on what seems “logical.” It is not an inference. It is based on the ARGUMENT. Don’t start to eliminate or compare answer choices until you have thoroughly broken down the premise. In Part 3 of this series, we’ll look at two harder Weaken questions!

See other articles in this series:

Anatomy of a Weaken Question – Part 1

Weaken questions are among the most common CR question-type. When students get these questions incorrect, it’s usually for one of two reasons: either they did not understand the necessary assumptions, or they choose an answer choice that seemed logical rather than one that more clearly related to the argument. In this series, we’ll be dissecting Weaken Questions, looking closely at their wording, set-up, and answer choices. Hopefully after this series you’ll be on your way to better scores on this GMAT question-type!

Try this GMAT critical reasoning question for practice!

Let’s start with the basics – how do you know you’re looking at a Weaken question? Here are some examples of the phrasing you might see on Test Day:

-Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the claim that periodontal disease is a cause of Coronary Artery disease?

-Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the argument to the left?

-Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument to the left?

Sometimes the word “weaken” will be in the question itself, and sometimes not. The idea is that the answer choices will somehow hurt the passage’s claims.

What is being weakened? Most of the time the entire argument is being weakened, however occasionally only one aspect of the argument is being weakened, or a secondary conclusion. Make sure you know WHAT is being weakened. Otherwise, you risk choosing an answer choice that is weakening the wrong part of the argument!

-Which of the following, if true, most undermines the conclusion stated in the passage to the left?

In this question “the conclusion” is what needs to be weakened, so as you narrow down and compare answer choices, you will need to ask yourself: which choice hurts the conclusion the most? Two answer choices may sound logical, but only ONE will direct its venom more squarely on the conclusion.

In taking apart an argument, you should already be comfortable identifying the Conclusion, the Evidence, and coming up with 2-3 logical Assumptions. You will need to do this before you can answer any weaken question. Let’s refresh on an easy-level Grockit question:

Recent U.S. legislation limiting the emissions permissible from automobiles will require auto manufacturers to incorporate new technology and more costly components in cars. This will drive up the price of cars, both at home and abroad. Therefore, the legislation will result in the loss of many export markets.

Conclusion: Legislation = loss of export markets

Evidence: Legislation requires $$ technology; will drive up price of cars

We know that Evidence + Assumptions = Conclusion, so the assumptions here are anything that will increasingly link the legislation’s requirements to a loss of export markets. Ask yourself: why would the increasing price of cars lead to a loss of export markets? An “export market” means that the US cars are sold overseas. The idea here is that if they are more expensive, then no one overseas will buy them because they will be more expensive than their native automobiles. Here’s how we could write that down in shorthand:

Assump: US cars are more expensive to foreigners; they will stop buying the US cars

Look out for part 2 of this series to see how this Assumption relates to the answer choices in this question! In the meantime, try out some easier Weaken questions in one of Grockit’s group games!

For more GMAT Critical Reasoning advice check out these posts!