Probability may not be the most frequently tested topic on the GMAT, but you are guaranteed to see at least one or two GMAT probability questions on the test. You can learn all the theory, but unless you practice with actual questions, the GMAT exam is going to be rather difficult.
You most likely already know that GMAT questions of the same type can appear in various forms. Some forms of Critical Reasoning (CR) arguments do not state conclusions explicitly. What you do in such cases? This post will look at a Strengthen the Argument CR question that doesn't state a conclusion but requires you to identify information that, if true, would make the argument's conclusion more solid.
Rather than asking to simply weaken the argument's conclusion, some Weaken questions want you to make a proposal or a plan seem less viable. This can be a challenge because, instead of following the author's reasoning, you might feel tempted to criticize the plan from a real-life perspective. Matters can become even more complicated if the argument features several points of view. This entry offers an example of just such a Weaken problem.
What makes a GMAT Critical Reasoning question hard to handle? The most basic source of problems may be the length of the argument. There are additional challenges of complicated vocabulary, multiple points of view that obscure the argument's conclusion, absence of real-life plausibility, and confusing answer choices. In this entry, we will look at a question that combines most of these features and therefore seems especially difficult for many test takers.
In the entry on general principles of working with Strengthen questions, you learned that, much like weaking an argument or finding the assumption, strengthening is all about correctly identifying the conclusion. Once you have found it, your job is to make the conclusion more likely to be true, even to a slight extent, with an answer choice that offers a new piece of information. Here's how strengthening works in practice.