General Question Regarding Strengthen/Weaken/Assump./Paradox

[Twan N]

I'm having a hard time trying to eliminate answers that are "new" but out of scope from answers that are "new" but relevant to evaluating the conclusion of the argument.

I understand that Strengthen/Weaken, Paradox, and to some extent, Assumption, will contain new information in the answer choices and these new information are not grounds for dismissing an answer choice, unlike in Inference questions. But what's a good strategy to eliminate those that are deemed new but out of scope from those that are new but relevant to evaluating the conclusion. Basically, how can you tell what's new but irrelevant from what's new but relevant? I find that I have an extremely hard time doing so when the stimulus and the answer choices becoming difficult to understand on harder questions.

[RonPurewal]

There's no "rule" for this. In fact, that's the entire reason why CR is on the exam in the first place: because you have to reason critically.

Basically, you should narrow the "scope", or "area of interest", of the problem down as much as possible. Once you've done that, you'll need to use real-world thinking and everyday common sense to determine what is relevant and what isn't.

[RonPurewal]

For instance, let's say a fast-food company is switching the oil in which its fries are cooked, and you want to know how the switch will affect the company's profits. (In this case, the "scope" or "area of interest" is profits.)

* How will the fries taste when cooked in the new oil?
There's no "rule" that will tell you this matters, but it should be pretty obvious that it matters.
Everday real-world thinking should tell you that, if the fries taste nasty when cooked in the new oil, then the restaurants' revenues will be reduced, in turn causing a reduction of profits.

* Is the disposal of the new oil as environmentally friendly as the disposal of the old oil?
In terms of profits, this is irrelevant"”it's only an issue of environmental preservation. (If you've studied economics, you may think about "social costs", but those are not considered in a company's bottom line.)
If you're given a reason why this might affect profit"”e.g., environmentally unfriendly disposal incurs massive fees or fines"”then it becomes relevant.

[Twan N]

For instance, let's say a fast-food company is switching the oil in which its fries are cooked, and you want to know how the switch will affect the company's profits. (In this case, the "scope" or "area of interest" is profits.)

* How will the fries taste when cooked in the new oil?
There's no "rule" that will tell you this matters, but it should be pretty obvious that it matters.
Everday real-world thinking should tell you that, if the fries taste nasty when cooked in the new oil, then the restaurants' revenues will be reduced, in turn causing a reduction of profits.

* Is the disposal of the new oil as environmentally friendly as the disposal of the old oil?
In terms of profits, this is irrelevant"”it's only an issue of environmental preservation. (If you've studied economics, you may think about "social costs", but those are not considered in a company's bottom line.)
If you're given a reason why this might affect profit"”e.g., environmentally unfriendly disposal incurs massive fees or fines"”then it becomes relevant.

Thanks for your input Ron; I spent more time going over the questions and I realized that once I understood what the answer choices are saying, it becomes easier to identify what's relevant and irrelevant. I think I just need to maintain focus when facing difficult questions and not let the long answer choices get the best of me. Also, I agree with you about the common sense; like you said in your videos, most of us seem to forget our common sense when we take the test. I tried to keep that in mind as I rationalize through the question and it helps a lot.

[RonPurewal]

Yep.

Whenever you look at any test-prep materials, remember that they are ... well, written materials. As such, they can only contain things that can be written down, in a way that appears to be at least somewhat methodical.

For tasks that by their very nature aren't methodical"”like CR"”it's easy to take that sort of thing the wrong way. Be careful out there.