Lesson 8.3: Evaluate Questions

Introduction

In this lesson, we will delve into Evaluate Questions, a key type of Critical Reasoning question on the GMAT. These questions will require you to identify information that would help to judge the strength of an argument's conclusion. By the end of this lesson, you will be able to select the fact or question that best evaluates an argument, effectively applying the variance test to candidate answers.

Learning Objectives

• Identify information that would help judge the argument.
• Understand the variance test: would the answer's two outcomes change the conclusion?
• Link the evaluation to the argument's gap.
• Select the question or fact that best evaluates an argument.
• Apply the variance test to candidate answers.

Understanding Evaluate Questions

Evaluate Questions in Critical Reasoning often ask you to consider what additional piece of information would be most helpful in assessing the validity of an argument. To tackle these questions effectively, it is crucial to understand how the argument is structured and to identify any key gaps or assumptions.

Argument Structure

Before we dive into Evaluate Questions, we need to familiarize ourselves with the basic structure of an argument. An argument consists of:

1. Premises: The supporting statements or evidence that underpin the conclusion.
2. Conclusion: The main point that the author seeks to assert based on the premises.

For instance, consider the following argument:

Premise: All cats are mammals.

Premise: Some mammals are not dogs.

Conclusion: Therefore, some cats are not dogs.

In this example, we see that the conclusion is derived from the premises. If we want to evaluate this argument, we should seek information that affects the relationship between the premises and the conclusion.

Variance Test

The variance test is a critical tool for Evaluate Questions. This test involves checking if different outcomes among the answer choices would alter the argument’s conclusion.

Example: Suppose we are given two scenarios: 1) "There exists a cat that is a dog"; 2) "Some cats are not dogs." If either of these scenarios changes the conclusion reached based on the premises, they are potentially valuable evaluations.

Worked Example

Consider the following Evaluate Question:

Question: Which of the following would most help in evaluating the argument that all students who maintain a job while studying have higher GPAs?

A) Most students who do not work do not achieve high GPAs.

B) Only a small number of students maintain jobs while studying.

C) Many students with high GPAs do not work.

D) A majority of students who have jobs demonstrate better time management skills.

E) Some students who work struggle to maintain their grades.

To assess these choices using the variance test:

• Option A: If most students who do not work do not achieve high GPAs, it does not directly affect the conclusion.
• Option B: This simply notes the number of students working but does not evaluate the argument's premise affecting GPAs.
• Option C: This option suggests a lack of correlation between working and high GPAs, directly impacting the argument.
• Option D: This does seem connected, as time management may relate to GPA but isn’t a direct evaluation.
• Option E: This indicates that even those who work may struggle academically, which strongly challenges the argument.

In this case, Option C and Option E would be strong candidates, but Option E interacts more directly with the premise. Thus, it is the correct choice for evaluating the original claim about GPAs.

Linking Evaluation to the Argument's Gap

Every argument typically has a gap or a missing link between evidence and conclusion. The goal in Evaluate Questions is to identify this gap. By strengthening or weakening this connection, you can determine how valid an argument is.

Identifying the Gaps

Let’s revisit the previous argument regarding students and GPAs. The gap here could be the assumption that working inherently leads to better academic performance. Evaluating whether all students who work have higher GPAs requires examining why that relationship exists or fails.

Example of Identifying Gaps

Suppose an argument states:

Premise: Regular exercise increases energy levels.

Premise: High energy levels correlate with productivity.

Conclusion: Therefore, regular exercise increases productivity.

The gap here is assuming that the increase in energy due to exercise will lead to productivity, without considering other variables, such as how an individual spends their time outside of exercise. Evaluating this argument requires identifying questions that evaluate this correlation:

• What if increased energy leads to distractions instead of productivity?
• Are there individuals who are highly productive without regular exercise?

Conclusion

In summary, Evaluate Questions ask you to scrutinize the connection between premises and conclusions in arguments. By applying the variance test, you learn to question what information could strengthen or weaken the argument's conclusion and thus refine your evaluation skills. Always be on the lookout for gaps in the reasoning and consider how various scenarios can impact the argument's strength.

Study Notes

• Evaluate Questions aim to identify information that helps assess the strength of an argument.
• The variance test helps determine if different outcomes of possible answer choices alter the conclusion.
• Understanding the structure of premises and conclusions is key to finding gaps in reasoning.
• Gaps often represent assumptions that can be challenged by direct connections in the evaluation.
• Always link the evaluation back to the argument’s essential claims for a more comprehensive understanding.