A Note on Dialogue Based CR Questions on GMAT Critical Reasoning

This video will expose you to a Note on Dialogue Based Questions on GMAT Critical Reasoning. The Note will prove beneficial in solving questions in the verbal section on GMAT.

A Note on Dialogue Based CR Questions on GMAT Critical Reasoning

A Note on Dialogue Based CR Questions on GMAT Critical Reasoning

Dialogue based critical reasoning questions are just a different form of typical critical reasoning questions. Rather than an argument, a dialogue is delivered but this argument will function in much the same way as an argument would. The fundamental critical reasoning concepts remain the same. Dialogue based questions will still be based on strengthening, assumption, weakening, explanation, evaluation, or inference. Let us illustrate how a dialogue based critical reasoning question should be solved through the following example.

Sample Question

Which of the following represents the fundamental flaw of Martina's response?

Jack: The GDP of Xitora has grown by 15% during the tenure of the Democrats. This is the highest growth during any tenure of the previous 30 years. Since the GDP growth is a fine indication of the economic growth of a party, the party has been applauded for its role in the achievement.

Martina: I disagree, you are discounting the soft stand by Democrats on long-standing social and diplomatic issues. Such a stand makes the performance of the government far from laudable.

Here, John has made an assertion and Martina has made a response, refuting it, that we are informed has a weakness. The question is which answer choice best describes that fundamental weakness. We will now go through the answer choices, one by one.

The mind map in this question is that John has suggested a high GDP growth and asserted that the current political party deserves to be applauded for its role in achieving the same. To which, Martina responds that the Democrats' performance on social and diplomatic issues has been soft and, thus, the government cannot be lauded.

Option 1 - She refutes Jack's argument, which is backed by numerical data, by her claim not backed by any evidence.
While this option is technically correct, Jack did back his argument with numerical data and Martina did not do so, it is not the main weakness of the argument. This is a weak choice.

Option 2 - She counter's Jack's opinion on the government's performance in one sector with her opinion of the same, in another sector.
This option expresses the main flaw in Martina's argument. Jack asserts that the government deserves praise for their performance in one sector but Martina attempts to refute that idea by criticizing the government's efforts in another sector. This is a very fine answer.

This article has deliberately been kept brief; for a more elaborate explanation, please refer to Experts' Global's Stage One Critical Reasoning videos.

Covered by…