Hello Stacey and Staff,

I have an observation I made from doing all the In Action problems from the MGMAT Crit Reas Guide chapters on Draw a Conclusion (ch 5), Strengthen Conclsn (ch 6), and Weaken Conclsn (ch 7).

As we were told in class and in the Guide, I have noticed that the answers to Draw Conclsn questions usually stick _very_ tightly to the premises (2007 MGMAT CR Guide p95), don't make a very big claim at all, and usually are a restatement of the facts given in the argument. Using this very "tight and literal" test, I have been able to get most of the Draw Conclsn questions correct.

However, when I moved on to the STR/WKN chapters and still applied the "tight and literal" test, it seems that it was too "tight and literal." Using this formerly extremely reliable test, I started getting the STR/WKN questions wrong.

For example, from the 2007 MGMAT Crit Reas Guide, WKN, p 171, In Action #1 "Tax Hike":

The mayor of Town M has proposed a tax hike on cigarettes to raise money for a new gym for the high school. He reasons that cigarette buyers in Town M will cotinue to purchase cigarettes despite the higher tax, leading to an increase in town income.

The correct answer says "Last year, a comparable tax increase on alcohol led to a significant decrease in alcohol sales."

Now, if I had chosen a choice similar to that one for a Draw Conclsn question, making a reference to anything other than cigarettes (such as alcohol, for example) or drawing a comparison to any situation other than a 99% similar replica of the situation in the argument (such as "When the mayor tried this exact same tax 1 year ago, with the exact same city, it failed...."), I would have gotten the question wrong. (A possible explanation might be, "This argument relates to a tax on cigarettes, and so an answer choice that references anything other than cigarettes is 'irrelevant' or 'beyond the scope of the argument' or 'does not necessarily provide an appropriate basis upon which to draw a conclusion'.")

Anyway, what I would like confirmation on is this: the answers to CONCL/INF questions have to be very "tight and literal", but the answers to WKN/STR questions seem to allow for a little more leeway, a few more logical steps, a little more common sense in their rationale. Can you see what I'm saying? Is my observation correct?

Thanks for your reply,
Chee Chee

Hi Chee Chee,

Your observation is accurate. For this distinction, I always come back to the P + (A) = C {Premises + (unstated Assumptions) = Conclusion} representation we discuss for the CR argument structure.

Draw a Conclusion questions are the only ones that ask about the right side of that equation. As such, you have only the left side of the equation to rely on...which really means you only have the premises they give you. You do not have (and cannot make) any assumptions, because random assumptions would allow you to conclude almost anything! Thus, the "tight and literal" approach is required.

On the other hand, Strengthen/Weaken the Conclusion types give you a conclusion, and are essentially asking you about the left side of that equation...i.e., what other premises would Strengthen or Weaken? what new information would weaken the conclusion by striking down a necessary assumption? As such, the correct choice might legitimately introduce previously unmentioned info.

Beware of a knee-jerk "oh, that's out-of-scope" reaction. Conversely, look at the wrong answers you thought were better related to the argument--you may find that you were making (subconsious) assumptions that caused you to overstate how related they were to the argument.

I'm sure your observation will help a lot of students!

Cheers,
Emily Sledge