Choices Generally Incorrect on GMAT Critical Reasoning

In this video, you will be exposed to Choices Generally Incorrect on GMAT Critical Reasoning. This concept will prove beneficial in solving questions in the verbal section on GMAT.

Choices Generally Incorrect on GMAT Critical Reasoning

Critical reasoning questions can be quite intricate and time-consuming, as there are many factors to consider when analysing a passage and determining the appropriateness of each answer choice. However, there are certain types of answer choices that are typically incorrect and can be eliminated, right away. By understanding these types of answer choices, you will be able to eliminate incorrect options, more efficiently, and better recognize the qualities of the correct answer choice. In this short article, we will cover a few answer choices that are usually incorrect on the GMAT.

Incorrect Answer Choices

1. Irrelevant Answer Choices Consider the following sentence - Jack should be able to score well on the GMAT; he is a good athlete. This sentence is a good example of an irrelevant answer choice. As athletic ability has nothing to do with one's ability to score well on the GMAT, this sentence fails to comment on the matter at hand and, thus, cannot be correct.

2. Extrapolators Extrapolators are answer choices that suggest that something that happened "there" should happen "here". This type of answer choice is quite common on the GMAT, and any answer choice that can be accused of being an extrapolation should be discarded

3. Contradictory to the Fact Stated in the Passage This is a very important type of incorrect answer choice, and we will illustrate it through the following example.

Example 1 - Passage: The price of oil has increased due to the rising dollar.
                      Question: Which choice weakens the argument that the rising dollar is responsible for the rise in oil prices.
                      Choice: The price of oil has not increased.

The choice that we are evaluating here makes the common mistake of contradicting a fact, presented in the passage. To weaken an argument means to weaken the logic of the reasoning behind it, not attacking or contradicting the facts stated. Thus, if the passage is stating that the price of oil has increased due to the rising dollar, a weakening statement must attack the link between the rising dollar and the increase in oil prices. Questioning the premise, whether the price of oil actually increased, is not the correct approach. Any answer choice that contradicts a fact stated in the passage is not going to be correct.

4. Purely repetitive in terms of facts already mentioned in the passage Conversely, answer choices that merely reaffirm facts that have already been mentioned in the passage are also incorrect. A correct answer choice must always bring something new to the table; if it only repeats what has already been mentioned, it is likely to be incorrect.

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

Covered by…