Over the last few days I’ve covered how to approach GMAT critical reasoning questions in great detail. By now you should be familiar with such question types as: weaken the conclusion, strengthen the conclusion, identify the best conclusion/inference, identify a parallel argument, and identify an assumption. Today, I’d like to review the last major critical reasoning question type that’s commonly seen on the GMAT, known as – analyze the argument. It’s important to properly identify the question type because the question type will dictate how we analyze the argument. “Analyze the argument” questions can be found in a couple of different forms.

Common forms of this question are:

  • In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
  • …arguments differ in which of the following ways?

What to look for

Analyze the argument questions are typically another source of difficulty for many GMAT students. This question will often display two statements with certain portions in bold or two arguments in total. The question will ask you to compare the two bolded statements to each other. It’s important to:

  1. Diagram the passage
  2. Identify the function of the bolded statements (either as evidence or conclusion)
  3. Compare the two statements to each other as well as compare the statements to the conclusion in order to identify the solution.

Example

Professor A: We must make a strong moral statement against Country X’s policies. Only total divestment—the sale of all stock in companies that have factories or business offices in X—can do this. Therefore, the university should divest totally.

Professor B: Our aim should be to encourage X to change its policies. Partial divestment is the best way to achieve this aim. Therefore, the university should sell its stock only in companies that either sell goods to X’s government, or do the majority of their business in X, or treat their workers in X unfairly.

Professor A’s and Professor B’s arguments differ in which of the following ways?

  1. They state the same goal but propose different ways of achieving it.
  2. They state different goals but propose the same way of achieving them.
  3. They state different goals and propose different ways of achieving them.
  4. They disagree about whether the university should sell any stock at all.
  5. They disagree about whether X’s policies are objectionable.

The Diagram

Prof A
1P        Statement against X’s policy
2P        Total divestment can do this
3C        University should divest

Prof. B
1P        Encourage X to change policy
2P        Partial divestment best
3C        University sell stock in companies that have business with X

The Explanation

Question prompt asks how the two arguments differ. Look at the conclusion for clues. The two arguments conclude two different methods for resolving the problem. Eliminate B. Answer E and D is completely off base. Look at the evidence to identity the goals in each argument. Prof. A wants to make a strong moral statement. Prof B wants to encourage country X to change policy. Both professors have different goals. The only answer that meets this criterion is solution C. Answer C is the correct answer.


Click here for access to the best GMAT Study Guide & GMAT Practice Exams