Once you start identifying plans, proposals, and predictions in Critical Reasoning stimuli, you’ll realize that many arguments contain conclusions in these forms. All three have a future orientation and indicate the author’s opinion.
Plans and proposals are found in conclusions that begin, “Thus, we should . . . ” or “It’s in the company’s best interest to . . . ” When a conclusion takes the form of a plan or proposal, the author is likely assuming that the plan or proposal is helpful and practical under the current circumstances. GMAT questions often test whether we realize that it may not be helpful or currently practical.
Critical Reasoning stimuli involving plans or proposals generally offer only one reason for the plan or proposal. In other words, because of X, we should do Y.
So what must the author be assuming about that evidence? That it’s the only, or at least the most important, factor to consider. Thus, any answer that introduces an alternative and competing consideration weakens the argument. Any answer that rules out a possible alternative consideration strengthens it.
Think about how you might weaken the following proposal:
Sam often oversleeps because he reaches over and turns off the alarm before he’s fully awake. To fix this problem, Sam proposes buying a second alarm clock.
Sam’s proposal is inherently flawed because it fails to consider some important factors: Sam might put the second clock right next to the first one and just shut it off, too. Alternatively, Sam might have to plug the second clock in too far from his bed. Then he won’t hear it, so it won’t be of any help. Either way, there’s an intervening consideration that suggests the plan will fail or will be self-defeating.
There may not be any evidence at all; the author may simply state that the plan will lead to a certain outcome. For example, the stimulus might just contain a proposal that can be paraphrased as “X will lead to increased profits.” Even though there’s no evidence given to support this outcome, the author is still making the general assumption that conditions exist that are conducive to success of the plan. The problem is not that the author is unreasonable in claiming that proposal X would increase profits—it might, in fact, do so. However, the proposal could be weakened by showing evidence that could undermine proposal X’s chance of success; for instance, while X may lead to increased revenue, it may also increase costs.
Predictions are no different in CR questions than they are in real life; they use the future tense: “So-and-so will win the Oscar,” “The economy will show modest growth,” or “We will not be able to meet the production deadline.” GMAT authors base their predictions on past and current trends or situations. In order to weaken such a conclusion, you want to find an answer choice that says that the trend will change. To strengthen it, look for an answer choice that says, “Future events will unfold as expected.”
Now let’s use the Kaplan Method for Critical Reasoning to solve a question involving a plan, proposal, or prediction:
Several people have died while canoeing during high water on a nearby river in recent years. The local police have proposed a ban on canoeing when the river reaches flood stage. Opponents of the ban argue that the government should ban an activity only if it harms people other than those who willingly participate in the activity, and they therefore conclude that the proposed ban on high-water canoeing is unwarranted.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the opponents’ conclusion?
The stem contains the obvious key word “weakens,” but it also asks you to weaken the opponents’ conclusion in particular. Keep this information in mind—there may be more than one argument in the stimulus.
The government shouldn’t ban an activity that poses no risk to people who don’t voluntarily participate. Therefore, the opponents argue, the government should not ban high-water canoeing.
To weaken the argument, you need an answer choice that explains why the opponents’ proposal should, on its own terms, be rejected. Here, the opponents assume that high-water canoeing does not harm anyone who does not willingly participate in the canoeing. To weaken the conclusion, look for an answer choice suggesting that canoeing during flood stage does in fact threaten people other than those who have chosen to canoe.
(C) offers such a suggestion by stating that police officers, none of whom consented to expose themselves to the dangers of canoeing in high water, were in fact harmed as a result of such canoeing. (C) is the correct answer.
(A) has no bearing on the argument; it isn’t clear how sailing on a lake during high wind is relevant to canoeing on a river during high water. This statement tells us nothing about whether high-water canoeing poses risks to non-canoers. And just because, as (B) says, other governments have also enacted the bans, that doesn’t mean that the bans are necessarily reasonable. The opponents might still have a valid argument. Therefore, (B) is also irrelevant. (D) offers an irrelevant comparison: that more canoeists drown while the river is at normal levels may simply be due to the fact that there are more canoeists at that time to begin with. That has no bearing on whether canoeing should be banned when water levels are high. And (E) might be tempting, but it doesn’t show that the opponents’ proposal to abolish the ban won’t work on its own terms. (E) doesn’t give an example of non-canoeists harmed by the canoeing.