Is GMAT Verbal Fair? (Part 3)
In the first article in this series, we started looking at the big picture of GMAT Verbal. Is there any point to studying Verbal? Is there any way to know which answers are really right, given that language is so much more subjective than math?
The answer to both of those questions is ‘yes, but it’s not always easy!’ On GMAT Verbal, it’s always possible to find the right answer using logic. That doesn’t mean the logic is obvious! In the last article, we introduced some simple ideas that will help you think about GMAT Critical Reasoning more logically. In this article, we’ll continue our deep dive into Critical Reasoning.
GMAT Critical Reasoning seems unfair, because it doesn’t play by the same rules as real life. Here’s an example of a real-life argument that you couldn’t see on the GMAT:
Ari: Fast food is gross. They don’t even use real meat, it’s just pink goo.
Ari’s argument has a conclusion (that fast food is gross), and a premise (that fast food restaurants use pink goo instead of real meat). However, the conclusion is too subjective for GMAT Verbal. How can you prove that something is gross, if you don’t know exactly what “gross” means?
In the real world, we’re so used to this kind of conclusion that we don’t even really think about it: “Dogs are good pets.” “Monday is my least favorite day of the week.” “Hot weather sucks.” If a conclusion isn’t perfectly clear, you and whoever you’re arguing with can always hash it out later. A little fuzziness isn’t a big deal!
GMAT Critical Reasoning conclusions are different. They’re clear and specific. That means you can’t apply fuzzy, real-world thinking to them. If you do, you’ll make mistakes.
Here’s an example of a GMAT Verbal argument with a clear, specific conclusion:
Multivitamins are available that provide 100% of the necessary daily allowance of all common vitamins. Nonetheless, physicians agree that consuming a diet including a variety of fruits and vegetables is more likely to result in optimal levels of these common vitamins in the body than simply taking a multivitamin.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the physicians’ recommendation?
Now, let’s check out some answer choices.
A) Many foods which naturally contain common vitamins also contain other nutrients which promote the absorption of those vitamins by the body.
B) Fruits and vegetables include certain nutrients which are critical to the optimal functioning of the human body but which are not commonly found in multivitamins.
C) The majority of people who regularly take a multivitamin rarely eat vitamin-rich fruits and vegetables.
The right answer to this one is (A). However, if you picked (B) or (C)—or if you were tempted by them—you actually used some strong real-world reasoning.
In the real world, if you hear an argument like this one, the person making the argument is probably trying to convince you that real foods are better than pills. All three answer choices actually support that conclusion! (A) says that real foods will help you absorb vitamins; (B) says that real foods contain other important nutrients; (C) says that people who just take pills are missing out on the other benefits of real foods.
That’s why it sometimes seems like GMAT Critical Reasoning problems have multiple “right” answers. All of these answer choices support the vague, fuzzy, “real-world” conclusion: “pills aren’t as good as food.”
Nonetheless, (A) is the right answer on the GMAT, and you can prove it with only logic. The actual conclusion to the argument is quite specific. It doesn’t just say that real foods are better; it says that they’re more likely to result in optimal levels of these common vitamins in the body. The right answer can’t just show that fruits and vegetables are good for you. It has to show that, when compared to multivitamins, they’re better at optimizing your vitamin levels.
Even though (B) and (C) are both points in favor of fruits and vegetables, neither of them makes that specific point. (A), on the other hand, does.
If a Critical Reasoning problem feels unfair, you may have missed something specific in the argument’s conclusion. It’s very easy to do that—we gloss over and summarize arguments all the time in the real world. However, on the GMAT, it can make it look like more than one answer is right!
That’s not the only reason Critical Reasoning problems can seem vague or unfair—we’ll talk about some other issues in the next article. ?
Want more guidance from our GMAT gurus? You can attend the first session of any of our online or in-person GMAT courses absolutely free! We’re not kidding. Check out our upcoming courses here.
Chelsey Cooley
is a Manhattan Prep instructor based in Seattle, Washington. Chelsey always followed her heart when it came to her education. Luckily, her heart led her straight to the perfect background for GMAT and GRE teaching: she has undergraduate degrees in mathematics and history, a master’s degree in linguistics, a 790 on the GMAT, and a perfect 170/170 on the GRE. Check out Chelsey’s upcoming GMAT prep offerings here.