Now that you’ve learned how to approach Critical Reasoning questions on the GMAT,
let’s add one more dimension to your understanding of how they work.
Take a moment to try this question. Following is performance data
from thousands of people who have studied with Kaplan over the decades. Through analyzing
this data, we will show you how to approach questions like this one most effectively
and how to avoid similarly tempting wrong answer choice types on Test Day.
Wunderlich Park has a strict regulation that requires mountain bicyclists to wear
helmets. Recently, a group of bicyclists acknowledged that helmets may prevent injuries
to the wearer but protested, claiming the park should only regulate activities that
may hurt a third party. Hence, the bicyclists argued that they should have the right
to refrain from wearing helmets.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion in the passage?
Ninety percent of bicyclists who use Wunderlich Park prefer to wear a helmet to protect
themselves in case of an accident.
Lawyers for Wunderlich Park have warned that the repeal of the helmet regulation would
lead to an increase in general admission park entrance fees to cover the legal expenses
associated with personal injury lawsuits.
Motorcyclists in a neighboring county are required to wear a helmet while on the road.
Parks that require the use of helmets have a lower percentage of accidents resulting
in deaths than parks that don’t require the use of helmets.
More bicyclists who do not wear helmets are seriously injured in accidents than bicyclists
who do wear helmets.
Explanation
The argument’s conclusion is presented in the final sentence, introduced by the key word
“[h]ence”: the bicyclists claim that they shouldn’t have to wear helmets in the park.
But despite the wording of the question, it isn’t really the conclusion itself that the test maker wants you to weaken—rather, you must weaken the logic supporting that conclusion. According to this argument, the reason why cyclists shouldn’t be made to wear helmets
is that the park should not restrict an activity that doesn’t harm others. The right
answer, therefore, will show how not wearing a helmet actually does harm someone else.
The correct answer—(B)—does just that; it shows how cyclists’ not wearing helmets would in fact harm non-cyclists:
the harm would be financial.
The three most commonly selected wrong answers are wrong because they do not address
the entire argument, only the general sense of the conclusion. (D) and (E) both give good reasons to wear a helmet, but they suggest that only the cyclist is
at risk, not someone else. (A) discusses cyclists’ preferences, but the argument about when to permit regulation
has to do only with whether others would be harmed, not with personal preference.
You can see that answers that ignore an argument’s reasoning are popular, and as such
are very common. Learn to avoid them, and you’ll go a long way to improving your GMAT
score.
More GMAT by the Numbers . . .
To see more questions, be sure to review the full-length
CATs in your online resources.
